There was nothing special about Iraq from the dozens of other brutal totalitarian societies where people are beaten, tortured, and disappeared.
Yes there is. First, America had already fought Iraq once and Iraq had failed to live up to its ceasefire responsibilities for over a decade. America had a pretty open and shut case against Iraq in terms of international law. Even without current UN approval, past SC resolutions allowed the US to claim legal legitmacy for the invasion. This couldn't have happened in the invasion of any other nation.
Second, Iraq was thought to be developing WMDs. Whether or not this was true remains to be seen, but before the war everyone seemed to believe Saddam had WMDs (even the French). The perceived presence of WMDs sets Iraq from most other dictatorships around the world.
Third, Iraq is at the heart of a region that is a breeding ground for Islamism and terrorism. That region needs to be reformed if we ever hope to beat Islamic fundamentalism, which makes a democracy in Iraq a much higher priority than democracy in Burma or Zimbabwe.
There were plenty of reasons to go after Iraq above and beyond the fact that it was a brutal tyranny.
Indeed they do. I don't believe the whitehouse elite is neo-conservative.
Some are, some aren't. Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell aren't. Wolfowitz and Cheney (sort-of) are. Saying the Bush Administration is run solely by realists is as stupid as saying that the Administration is run by a Jewish-cabal of neo-cons.
Comment