I didn't see what commentary was needed.
When the article says that Bush didn't lie, do I need to parrot that so people won't assume I believe he was lying?

But now that I have stated my position, and you still haven't commented on it, allow me to repeat...

Bush was clueless as to what people were doing underneath him.
He either didn't ask, which I qualify as incompetent, or he did ask and they lied to him, and then he provided no penalty, which I also qualify as incompetent.

It boils down quite simply.
Either Bush knew what he was having repeated was inaccurate => lie. (I don't believe this option)
Or Bush did not know that what he was repeating was inaccurate. And considering the corruption was within his own house, that's pretty damn scary.

So while Bush may have not lied, the alternative is hardly flattering...