Well that was not the only alternative and nobody was talking about surrender to Al Qaeda. Plus it had zero to with WMDs in Iraq. If you remember, the imminent threat of WMDs was the fable W sold to the frightened American Public in 2002/2003. There was no formidable ISIS/ Al Qaeda presence in Iraq until after the invasion.
This will be one area in which conservatives will always disagree. Back in the day, I resented being called an 'appeaser" or "RINO" on these very boards just because I opposed the party line. The insults were so intense, I kept away for almost 5 years. But those days are in the past and we need to move on. In 2020 there are upcoming events that may put our republic at stake. In around 100 days we have a critical election that the Dems can't be allowed to win. I am talking on Federal, State and even Local levels. They should be the focus of our opposition and efforts. It shouldn't be fellow conservatives with whom we disagreed with on an issue 16 years ago.
Actually, even if we WERE to ignore WMDs in Iraq for a minute (and there’s plenty of evidence that Iraq did indeed have that, some of which was provided by General George Sada, one of Saddam Hussein’s top men, and even a plane pilot assigned to relocate the chemical weapons), Iraq STILL ultimately would have needed to be invaded since, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, they HELPED al Qaeda commit various terrorist acts, INCLUDING 9/11. And if we can fight against the Nazis and Italian Fascists during World War II despite having absolutely no direct role in Pearl Harbor, I’m pretty sure Iraq is fair game for THAT reason alone. Heck, Conservapedia even has documented evidence making clear that WMDs did exist in Iraq, as you can see here: https://www.conservapedia.com/Iraq_War#Weapons_of_Mass_Destruction And bear in mind, they were NEVER fans of GWB at all, even freely calling the Bushes RINOS, so it’s not like they agree with him or like him at all.
The only bit I’ll blame Bush for was nation-building, particularly his screwing up and trying to put in democracy (it didn’t even work out in France, why should it work in a place like Iraq?). Even there, I’m not necessarily against nation-building itself (nor am I for it, for that matter). In fact, I’d argue that if we did nation build enough in Afghanistan to allow for better infrastructure, al Qaeda wouldn’t have gotten a foothold in there.