Conflicting Iraq War Evidence

There is so much conflicting evidence coming out as to what senior militaryand administration people knew before, during and after the twin towers wentdown. I just can't understand why anyone thought it was ok to attack Iraq atthe time we did. It seems to me that wise men (leaders) would have wanted toget all the information in one place and analyze it before they made anykind of huge decision like war. It also seems to me that a main strategythat should have been talked about before declaring war would be how to getfinished and come home. I am not even certain that there were any real goalsto accomplish before coming home. It seems to me like the people advisingthe president didn't think he would actually go to war and they didn't haveany kind of complete plan or complete information.I also find it extremely difficult to believe that these military leaderswould have rallied around George W. What did he know about war? I can't seeGeorge W. being able to gain the confidence of our military personnel withenough control to be able to convince them to execute what they knew to be apoorly planned mission based on conflicting information.Makes you wonder what person or small group of people have the power toconvince these hardened vets and generals to do the wrong thing for thewrong reasons. I just don't get it. How did well-educated seasoned combatvets and politicians allow this 'attacking Iraq' thing to get so far thatthey couldn't turn back? It seems like everyone of them would know in thebacks of their minds that this was a mistake. Why didn't they stand up andsay "wait a minute" or "lets take another look at this thing?"It just baffles me.