"Why mke an example of Hussein on one hand, and welcome Gadaffi , whom they accuse of atrocities every bit as heinous as the Iraqi dictator's, into their circle of trading partners, on the other? Any answers?"
The answer to that is fairly simple, the former after having agreed to rid his country of the ability to threaten his neighbours and terrorise his own population reneged on the deal, having been given every opportunity to disarm in a manner that could be verified by the international community. The latter has made a statement of intent to the international community and declared his country's willingness to have that process of disarmament verified - I believe South Africa did the same and achieved that successfully.
Akenaton: Among a minority contributing to this forum, I beleive that the "War on Terrorism", and the recent war in Iraq, were totally justifiable. The former has improved international co-operation to an extent that terrorist groups find it increasingly difficult to acquire and use such weapons. That does not mean that they won't, it does not mean that they will give up trying, so the guard stays up.
As to your scepticism of the "War on Terror". No "rogue state" unless out of their tiny minds would USE such weapons, but it is quite possible that they could supply such weapons. As you have have stated the deterrent to "rogue states" using such weapons was the direct consequences to themselves - this they fully realised after Afghanistan. Subsequent to Afghanistan and Iraq, we have North korea being led to regional multilateral talks on their nuclear programme, Iran agreeing to co-operate completely with the IAEA and the UN and the declaration from Lybia to rid itself of it's WMD.
WMD's as bargaining counters - North Korea has tried to play that card in the past, it has been trying to play it recently and has so far failed to do so because it's neighbours simply do not trust anything that the leadership in North Korea says. The US does not have to worry about any North Korean threat - if North Korea ever even remotely looked like following through on any of them, China would take measures to prevent them.
There is not, nor has there ever been, any implied attack, fullscale, or otherwise on Islamic culture. Many Islamic states are under more threat from these terrorists than are the countries of the West.
So economic terrorism is the future is it? Just how do "they" go about doing it Akenaton? It's not as easy as you appear to think it is - and it's a damn sight more traceable.