PMartin, I have not heard anyone who has opposed Pres. Bush on this one try to make the arguement that Sadaam was not anything but a brutal dictator. I certainly feel that way. However, that was not the arguement that the Administration used to justify this war. The reasons I remember were:

Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US safety and securtiy because of WMD.

Iraq deserved to be paid back because of involvement with 9/11.

Now, I think the question on the table is why did the Administration not use the arguement that you outlined in your post. After all, it was well known that Sadaam was a brutal dictator, a devil on earth. Why didn't President Bush use that arguement? Why did his administration feel that it was necessary to use the other arguements? Arguements by their very nature required a substantial degree of risk that the "facts" would not be proven. This is the part that confounds me. I can't figure out what the game is. Oil? - possible, paying back Sadaam for what happened with his Dad? - possible. What am I missing? Do you think that the Administration had an internal arguement that they said the American people would not accept the arguement that we needed to get rid of Sadaam because he was a creep? Do you think that they thought the only way to sell this war was to scare the American public? Or do you think that they were hesitant to open the Pandora's box of removing the head of another sovereign state as justification for war? After all, that is a two way street, if N. Korea thought that the President of the US was a devil on earth and they had the power to take him out, would they be justified in doing so? My fervent hope is that you would answer no. If so, I would then ask you to examine your post again and see if you can see the Pandora's box that it opens.