Bush and Bad Intelligence

Bill O'Reilly brought up a good point during his debate with Michael Moore that I felt Moore did not address sufficiently. This is also a main point in refuting reasons for mobilizing war against Iraq. While in hindsight, it seemed that Bush has acted hastily on bad intelligence. As O'Reilly points out, he didn't 'lie' per se, but really just acted on bad information, which was corroborated by British Intelligence and elsewhere. It seemed the world fell prey to the sly country of Iraq, which fooled the world to think it had WMDs and links to Al-Qaida. Is Bush absolved? Is he at fault at all? Would anyone given the same information he had act similar? I would say not.
Enter Social Psychology. It seems obvious now that there were multiple sources of intelligence that were wrong about Iraq possessing WMDs. Think for a moment: before the war, was there any reliable agency that reported that Iraq did not indeed have any WMDs? Think carefully... I put forth that there was, and in fact the Bush administration chose to use confirmation bias in building it's case for war. For those who don't know, confirmation bias is the prejudice of gathering information that only finds facts to support one side. In addition, it tends to ignore flaws of evidence that support, and also discredits/ ignores evidence that does not support one's hypothesis. It took me a while to remember that there was plenty of reasons to doubt the existence of WMDs, and his name was Hans Blix, of the UN weapons inspection team (who had the clearest picture of Iraq's weaponry since they were actually in the country), who was forced out of Iraq because USA demanded to attack. The intelligence was hardly unianimous, nor were the conclusions indisputable, as can be seen by the utter lack of support when the case was brought before the UN. It makes sense now, that Bush in his haste to make war, would purposely ignore antithetic evidence that would weaken his case. I would suppose a dilligent leader would consider evidence from both sides before waging war. Reliable information that Iraq did not have WMDs were available, but Bush chose to conceal the truth and brought a lop-sided case to present to the USA, the UN and the world. Bush might not have 'lied' but he didn't tell us the whole truth. Not only did he act on bad information, he also acted on bad judgement. He chose not to pursue evidence that might weaken his warmongering goals (even though it would have established a better perspective of issue), which is detrimental to his credentials as a leader. There's really no way around it, as it's obvious Bush should not be trusted, and really is the worse president. ever.