Why was it not a bad idea to invade in 2003 and not 1994?

9/11!!! War on Terror!!!! 9/11!!!! Smoking Gun! Mushroom cloud! 9/11!!! WMDs!!!! Al-Qaeda connections!!! 9/11!!!! He was evil! Well that last one was true, he was evil, but so what? There are other evil men in power in this world yet we don't seem to give a crap about them. Ummmm... 9/11 that's why!!!

Ok, here's the serious part:
Apparently, quagmires don't exist when it's a "slam dunk" case. Saddam Hussein and Iraq didn't change much between 1994 and 2003. Saddam was brutal dictator then, and in 2003. The sects and the factions or whatever were there then, and are obviously still here now. You hear about Syrian and Iranian weapons and stuff pouring into Iraq, but wait? Weren't Iran and Syria one of the reasons why we didn't try to take down Saddam back then according to Mr. Cheney? We would've had to go it alone then, and we are basically going it alone now. There would have been many, many American and Iraqi casualties if we took down the government and Saddam then and... well you get the idea.

People need to start understanding this, especially if they're some figure of fame or influence: Everything you say or do is recorded! Everything that comes out of your mouth is on file! Don't be a hypocritical P.O.S. on camera! (Or off camera as well.) We will know! We know what you said in 1994, and in 2003, and you will be held accountable, hopefully. Remember, "Read my lips, no new taxes!"? People didn't forget that little promise...