Len Carrier, my esteemed but misguided co-blogger over at The Ethics of War, has been propounding and applying a theory (see here) which conflates the mental state of the agent with the agent's action. Utilitarians such as John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) consider these separate matters. I believe the same is true of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), who distinguished between doing one's duty (i.e., acting in accordance with duty) and doing one's duty from a particular motive (i.e., acting from duty).
Len is entitled to propound any theory he wants, but he should not suggest (especially to a nonphilosophical audience) that there is no alternative to it. In fact, his theory is quite eccentric. If Len were right, it would make no sense to say such things as "It's the thought that counts" or "You did the right thing for the wrong reason." When one says the former, one implies that the agent acted wrongly but is not blameworthy (culpable) for doing so. When one says the latter, one implies that the agent acted rightly but is not praiseworthy for doing so. In everyday life, we distinguish between the goodness or badness of persons and the rightness or wrongness of their actions, between why one does something and what one does.
By conflating these two objects of evaluation—agents and their actions—Len is able to focus attention on President Bush's mental state in going to war. I have no idea why he is obsessed with President Bush, but I know that many liberals are. Let's talk about the war, not the man who waged it. Let's talk about what President Bush did, not why he did it. Let's talk about right and wrong, not good and bad. I'm not saying that we should be unconcerned with President Bush; I'm saying that we should be concerned with something besides him.