Like Petr says....

Bottom line. The man should know better, he is either ignorant or feigning ignorance, I don't know which is more contemptable for a president but both are bad.

He's not just the president of Texas. He's the president of the whole country. As much as Clinton disgraced his office with fornication and lies, Bush is disgracing it by glorifying ignorance. He brags about not reading the papers, he refuses to learn to pronounce simple words, he unashamedly uses poor grammar.

Which brings back to your first pointless point about whether or not he intentionally lied. His sixteen words in his penultimate State of the Union address were carefully chosen to give the impression that there was new compelling evidence of a nuclear program in Iraq. UK sources were quoted to give plausible deniability. If he had quoted the CIA, he would have had to say that the CIA had looked into these allegations and drawn a blank. Instead he chose to tell a "Clinton" lie. A falsehood which is defensible against perjury charges. It has nothing to do with "Proof by Absence" It has everything to do with what the definition of is is. ;)