The consequence of that was that he was back into the characteristic mode of being the most un-curious person in the history of the planet. Might he be the least bit interested in what this information is?

Liar or un-curious? Well, the evidence says....LIAR!

WaPo today:

Hadley said Bush was first told in August or September about intelligence indicating Iran had halted its weapons program, but was advised it would take time to evaluate.

So will anybody bother to point this out? WaPo's first crack is not promising:

He denied that he knew about the new assessment before his Oct. 17 remarks, saying he was briefed on the latest NIE only last week. He said the director of national intelligence, John M. McConnell, informed him in August that the intelligence community had "some new information" about Iran's program. "He didn't tell me what the information was. He did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze."

Surely the librul, out to get Bush NY Times will toss in a zinger:

He said that he had learned of the new intelligence findings only last week, and that no one in the intelligence community had urged him to step back from his tough warning, made in October, that a nuclear Iran could pose a danger of a "World War III."

Well here's a two-fer. Not only is there no reference to an earlier briefing they stick with Dubya's claim that nobody urged him to step back. From that anti-Bush website whitehouse.gov:

when the President was told that we had some additional information, he was basically told: stand down; needs to be evaluated

I realize these are just the initial write-ups after the presser, but this seems like basic information.

Update [2007-12-4 17:5:17 by MLDB]: More from Harpers: