I may run out of time before finishing it, for tonight, but the first three pages are already amazing. I was reminded of your theory from long ago that nobody wanted to disappoint Saddam and simply lied to him about their progress creating WMD. There seems to have been a lot of that, rubbing up against the leadership's desire to believe it and for other Arab nations to believe it; and basically they formed a deadly circlejerk. Your theory turns out to have been essentially correct.

The deadliest circlejerk of all is described in this rather mind-blowing passage:

Ironically, it now appears that some of the actions resulting from Saddam's new policy of cooperation actually helped solidify the coalition's case for war. Over the years, Western intelligence services had obtained many internal Iraqi communications, among them a 1996 memorandum from the director of the Iraqi Intelligence Service directing all subordinates to "insure that there is no equipment, materials, research, studies, or books related to manufacturing of the prohibited weapons (chemical, biological, nuclear, and missiles) in your site." And when UN inspectors went to these research and storage locations, they inevitably discovered lingering evidence of WMD-related programs.

In 2002, therefore, when the United States intercepted a message between two Iraqi Republican Guard Corps commanders discussing the removal of the words "nerve agents" from "the wireless instructions," or learned of instructions to "search the area surrounding the headquarters camp and [the unit] for any chemical agents, make sure the area is free of chemical containers, and write a report on it," U.S. analysts viewed this information through the prism of a decade of prior deceit. They had no way of knowing that this time the information reflected the regime's attempt to ensure it was in compliance with UN resolutions.

(emphasis added)

It's worth pointing out, without intending to start an argument, that this couldn't have happened if the American leadership hadn't been just as fixated on what they wanted to believe too. More skepticism on our side might have revealed the mistake.

We talk about groupthink usually in terms of a closely-coupled group of individuals, but this is an example of two loosely-coupled groups interacting at a distance in a way that produced a virtual groupthink result. This may inspire some new management theories, and it'd be nice if we learned something from it.

What at day it's been, with all the links you and the other hunter-gathers have brought back to the campfire from the wilderness of the Net. It may take me days to consume the bounty! Thanks for the nourishment.