Bush's Middle East policies are dictated by neoconservatives in his defense cabinet.  The neocons have been itching to invade Iraq and topple Saddam long before 9-11 (many of you are probably aware that this 1998 letter to President Clinton, urging the overthrow of Saddam, was signed by prominent neocons such as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, all of them senior defense advisors in the Bush administration. Wolfowitz is widely regarded as the chief architect behind the Iraq war concept).  

Iraq is simply part one of a larger neocon program of global military domination.  Mind you, it's not exactly a policy of conquest and imperialism, rather, it's more a view that the United States should spread democracy and serve as world's policeman (and reap the economic benefits and clout that such a position manifests).  Project for a New American Century, a defense-oriented neocon think tank, wrote a policy paper in 2000 called Rebuilding America's Defenses, which effectively outlines this view of the role of American power in the post-Cold War era.  Both Wolfowitz and Lewis "Scooter" Libby (chief of staff to Dick Cheney) were major contributors to this paper. 

In light of these facts, do you really believe that the underlying reasons for the Iraq war were exclusively related to defeating Islamic terrorism, or do you think perhaps the neocons are in fact also taking advantage of 9-11 to begin implementing their vision of a more powerful and globally-entrenched US military? 

I have wrestled with the answer to this question myself, but I must admit that it does currently seem to me that the latter scenario is at play to a reasonable degree.  And this is precisely what is troubling many libertarians such as myself, as we tend to view defense policy as the Founders did: that America should avoid military adventures abroad.