On 08/02/09 14:04, Chambers wrote:
> Not delusional, but deluded. From what I've seen, I think he wanted the
> war in Iraq badly enough that two things happened:
>
> 1) His own view of the available data was biased,

	That makes sense only if you assume he invaded for his stated reasons.

> 2) His staff, knowing what he wanted, either consciously or
> unconsciously colored the information they gave him.

	It actually seems that some in his staff wanted it more than he did. In 
a case or two (perhaps unrelated to Iraq), he had to overrule some of 
his staff in order to be a bit "saner". Rumsfeld, for example, did not 
want federal agencies involved in Katrina. Bush finally overruled.

> Combined, I'm sure that he was convinced he was doing the right thing.

	Perhaps, but "right" is a very slippery term. From a certain 
perspective, destroying a country to get a strategic advantage in the 
reason is the right thing to do. Or so I keep being told.

> I'm also certain that he's much more intelligent than people give him
> credit for, and that if he'd had access to better (read: less biased)
> information, he would have made more intelligent choices. He was still
> biased himself, so he wouldn't be perfect, but he would have done a lot
> better.

	Less biased information?

	The intelligence information he received was mostly correct. The CIA 
warned him that the connections were quite tenuous. They even made him 
remove the Niger link from his speech (or that of someone in his 
cabinet). It was common practice to have a speech vetted by the CIA. 
When Colin Powell finally gave that speech, he did so without the CIA's 
knowledge.


-- 
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it 
a bit."

Post a reply to this message