Our Daily Froomkin is exceptionally tasty. Item one: are we on track to the shortest State of the Union experience in memory?

The pomp of the State of the Union address and the deference given to Bush's office will prevent the night from turning into an outright rout.

But as a defensive measure, White House speechwriters are said to have crafted a speech that avoids the traditional laundry list of proposals and applause lines that would almost surely have fallen flat -- or even led to boos and groans -- given Bush's new circumstances.

Heh. Note to Sen. Webb and those advising him on his SOTU Response: write longer. You may get an unexpected amount of time to fill. You know how SOTU's usually go: 10, maybe 15 minutes of actual speechification and the rest of the 30 minutes consisting of "spontaneous" outbursts of applause by members of the president's party. Prediction: numerous Young Republicans planted in the gallery to stroke the Preznitential ego when all of Congress developes spontaneous gout and are unable to move arms or leap to feet.

The rest of Froom is tasty, as mentioned. Froomkin himself is still resisting the L word, although for those who approve artful language his avoidance is perhaps more painful, which is good. Down aways is a section called "How Bush Chose Escalation" quoting a WaPo story about how the whole "surge" crap was made up. He quotes Abromowitz and Baker as saying :

A reconstruction of the administration's Iraq policy review, based on more than a dozen interviews with senior advisers, Bush associates, lawmakers and national security officials, reveals a president taking the lead in driving the process toward one more effort at victory -- despite doubts along the way from his own military commanders, lawmakers and the public at large."

and then states in his own voice

Missing from the story, however, is any acknowledgement that Bush is running around telling another story altogether. (Watch for it again tomorrow night.)

As I wrote in my Jan. 12 column, Bush is pushing a revisionist explanation not supported by the facts.

If that isn't elegant enough it's followed shortly by a Frank Rich out-from-behind-the NYT-paywall quote called:

On Lying

Frank Rich writes in his New York Times opinion column (subscription required) that he is seeing 2003 all over again.

"This time we must do what too few did the first time: call the White House on its lies. Lies should not be confused with euphemisms like 'incompetence' and 'denial.' . . .

"The latest lies are custom-made to prop up the new 'way forward' that is anything but. Among the emerging examples is a rewriting of the history of Iraq's sectarian violence. . . .

Ahh. Elegant and tasty. Go read--this is just the cherry on top.