It is my understanding that the reason for wanting Saddam out of the way is that his policies are a direct threat to our strategic and economic interests in the Persian Gulf Region.
The ideal situation, of course, would to be to replace Saddam with a regiem more friendly to the US. Failing that, the next best thing is to neutralize his military power and support opposition movements in Iraq.
So no, I was quite serious when I said,"Why would he want to do that? If the WMDs are gone than there is no more danger to our interests in the Persian Gulf."
This isn,t quite true since Saddam still has his army but it is not well equiped or trained. The exception are the Republican Guards who are Saddams elite troops and are mostly from his own clan.
Without the treat of WMDs Bush would be able to garner little support for any massive military expedition into the Middle East.
The rule, as always, is follow the money. The countries who are opposed to a strong UN resolution with military action as the consequence of non-cooperation on the prat of Iraq, are also those who have a history of trade with Iraq over the last ten years in direct opposition to the trade embargo set up by the UN. Thanks to countries like France, China and Russia, Saddam has been able to amass Billions of dollars to use in rebuilding his damaged weapons programs and reequiping his army.
While the world blamed the US for the starvation od Iraqi children, Saddam was pumping humanitarian funds into his military machine.
Sorry about the thread creep.

troll