They were quoted, of course, "weapons of mass destruction blah blah blah", but the continuous critical review was very skeptical towards the official US narrative, and was quick to point out the likelihood of forged intelligence reports and other sources that questioned the motive of the invasion. I myself went to a public protest against it at the time, and the prevailing public opinion was that the invasion was not justified. Tough luck; our opinion didn't matter but at least no one were beaten up or went to prison over it. Our tax money did not kill Iraqis.
I do understand where you're coming from, and I can agree with your sentiment to a certain extent. There is a double standard regarding certain "rubber hits the road" aspects of the top-level leadership in Western countries, that falls far short of democratic ideals. Edward Snowden and Julian Assange have been hunted like rabid animals for merely revealing factual information that was relevant to public discourse. France, USA, others, have developed a governance structure that does not resemble well-functioning democracies, and the latter is dangerously close to an authoritarian shift. The USA literally tortured suspected terrorist collaborators with no judicial oversight. This is not an exhaustive list.
So certainly, there's plenty to criticize and some of it runs very deep. Human rights violations happen with some regularity. But freedom of speech and freedom of the press is not abolished. The rule of law applies. I will certainly point it out if this risks ceasing to be the case, first and foremost because that leads to a bad society to live in, but also because the culture that stems from these values is more economically powerful than one without them.
On Ukraine I'll just disagree with you. Russia's invasion is an imperialist military expansion. That kind of thing should only happen in history books. The rest of the world must use all safe means to prevent it from succeeding and setting precedent, and for the sake of existential risk also to avoid nuclear proliferation in small and exposed countries.
No one wants to share a long land border with a geopolitical adversary; I'd be happy to criticize the lack of statesmanship and realpolitik in managing Ukraine's NATO ambitions versus Russia's wish for security guarantees. But the war, or something like it, would have happened regardless. It's just a fig leaf. The core of the issue is Russian leadership's fear of Ukraine, like Poland and the Baltic states, setting an example of a peer culture succeeding with dramatically higher wealth growth under democratic values, that the inhabitants themselves decided to implement.
If I'm wrong, I'll admit it when history becomes clearer in 10 years.
[Edit: Following one of your points. Countries without democracy, rule of law and freedom of speech certainly and obviously have independent thinkers. Some of them are incredibly brave to voice their opinions in spite of sometimes brutal punishments. More so than all Western journalists. My commentary is on the societal environment and governance. But being susceptible to propaganda is universally human, and most people are not independent thinkers, regardless of where they grew up
Should also mention that I have huge respect for Russian culture and Russian cultural and scientific achievements. These comments are not a criticism of peoples and their cultures].