Consider the implications of the neoconservative arguments. Mr. Mugabe, the crazed ruler of Zimbabwe has made a mockery of democracy in his country, impoverished her citizens and killed his opponents. Zimbabwe is smack in the middle of a region that could certainly benefit from an infusion of democracy and it is unarguably true that a choice between living in Mugabe's Zimbabwe and Hussein’s Iraq would be no choice at all. Still, no one has seriously proposed sending U.S. troops into that unfortunate nation to rescue her citizens from the tyrant who runs the place.
A major difference that he overlooks is that Mugabe is essentially powerless beyond his own border. Hussein was sitting on trillions of dollars of oil and could export terrorism by the barrel.
The author was not overlooking it, he was stating the anti-"humanitarian" argument. And makes it clear that that is why Bush avoided using the democracy/humanitarian argument and foceused more heavily on UN violataions/WMD/terror support.