>I disagree. He / they were talking the WMD line before his inauguration. And it was not separate and later than the "bad guy, got to go" rationale.

But they (mainly Wolfowitz and his boys) were talking about a world without dictators before that too.

You're right, that these aren't separate issues. The WMD is meant to be an example case of why dictators are bad. They could use their power and wealth to aquire something bad and then put it right in the hands of some other nutter who normally wouldn't have access to that.

But my point still stands, we didn't bring up this dictator thing after no WMD were found. That was an important argument in the war debate for those really studying foriegn policy at the time.