I think at the time,it was a good thing,but it has gone on too long. The world has changed since then, and many things to change with it. He had cause to do this then,but budget cuts today make it a bad idea,the last 11 years have been troubling on the entire world.
I believed the reasons that were given by President Bush for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Even though that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction found in Iraq, I still though the reason were sound and justified. American had to make sure that Iraq did not possess the weapons.
We have seen a pattern of cherry picking evidence to suit predetermined geo-strategic goals. In the lead up to the war in Iraq, critics were suggesting that weapons inspectors needed to be given more time to do their jobs. That time was not given because the desire for war was already there, evidenced by the Project for the New American Century's call for US global domination catalyzed by a "New Pearl Harbor," and Rumsfeld's call for an Iraqi invasion immediately after 9/11. The evidence used to build the case was flimsy, and the war mongers ignored contrary indications. Those people who were paying attention realized the weapons weren't there, and they were proven right, in spite of the lies from the government.
It has been clearly shown that President Bush's reasoning behind the invasion of Iraq was completely wrong. There has been zero proof found and it is even often joked about in American media and society. The United States and exactly zero valid reasons to invade Iraq. Our president had a personal vendetta that started with his fathers time in office.
No, I don't think Bush was honest about why he wanted to invade Iraq. I think it had to do with his father and the fact that he had problems with Saddam. He know about Afghanistan and the intelligence info as much as any other person with access to it, but he wanted to focus on Iraq rather than the attackers.