INVASION OF IRAQ: WAS THE PRESIDENT SIMPLY MISLED ?

First, let's get one thing straight from the start: I am not a democrat, republican, nor am I a liberal or conservative. I am a centrist and moderate. Being that I spent over twenty nine years in the U.S. Air force and served under both republican and democratic presidents, I learned over time that I should not become aligned with either major party, neither in or out of uniform. So I became a proud-to-be independent. And thank God I did. I should also note, proudly, that I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq, not because I didn't think Sadam didn't deserve to be removed from power, as many other dictators should throughout the globe, but primarily because I believed he was sufficiently being contained. Also, I strongly felt the people of Iraq should have been the ones to do the job, and that Iraq was and is not worth one American soldier's life. So, I have no vested interest in trying to make President Bush look bad. But I can't help wondering if he was simply misled, naive or was actually looking for a valid reason-whether justifiable, credible or not- to invade Iraq and remove Sadam for reasons unknown to the American public. I ask myself over and over: could one of those reasons be that the President was easily influenced by the neo-conservatives that surround him, or run in his inner-circle? Those individuals being Vice-President Cheney, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, former department of defense official; among others. No one I know of has addressed this issue, or asked this question. At least I haven't been exposed to such questions being presented in the media. Thus, I pose the following provoking questions- as food for thought: (1) Did or do the neo-conservatives view Mr Bush as a mere tool to be manipulated to achieve their overall selfish and worldly objectives? (2) Why did they push for Mr Bush, not known to be one of the brightest people or most capable individuals the republicans could have chosen to run for the presidency? (3) Again, why Mr Bush? (4) Why did the neo-conservatives rally around Mr Bush so strongly and committedly from the outset, and not Senator John mcCaine of Arizona? (5) Did they "really" see in him the attributes or characteristics required of an individual to handle the massive job of being president of the United States of America? (6) Did they honestly feel he had the necessary intellectual qualities and potential, or was adequately equipped to handle the most powerful position in the world? Or, (7) , was Mr Bush merely seen in the eyes of the neo-conservative war hawks as a prime patsy? Only they and God know. But when I see how fanatical and determined the conservatives are when attempting to pad the Supreme Court with ultra-conservative judges to further one of their principal causes, for example-over-turning the Roe-v-Wade abortion law, I can't help but wonder if a similiar master plan was in play when Mr Bush was nominated and chosen to run for the presidency. Do I believe in the conspiracy theory? Yes and no. In this particualr case, yes I do. Something just isn't right about how my country's leaders are setting policy, and executing the peoples' business. Somehting just isn't right? And I feel quite uneasy, concerned, and god-damn mad at times. It's not only frustrating and sad, but scary at times as well. What is this country coming to? But I pose the central question, again: was Mr Bush just a tool to be used by the neo-conservatives to further their ultimate "new world order?" And was he naive, deceived and misled into invading Iraq? Last but not least, does he now recognize this to be the fact, but is just too proud, stubborn, loyal, and concerned for his legacy to admit it? As a retired military officer and veteran, and concerned citizen, I do have a vested interest in the future of this beautiful nation of ours. And just how our leaders continue executing the war in Iraq-especially when our men and women are dying every day in a war that could have been avoided- is of special concern, coupled with the billions of dollars we are expending on a daily basis. By no means am I opposed to war, only unnecessary war. I supported, unequivocally, the U.S. efforts in Afganistan- which was necessary and unavoidable since we were taking the battle directly to the architects and perpetrators of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, respectively, on September 11, 2001. With all the above stated, I welcome comments. but first I urge you to review my list of Recommended Readings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Perle;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Rumsfeld