Attacking Iraq has to do with him violating a ceasefire agreement he made in 1991. He invaded Kuwait, had their women raped, their men murdered, and attempted to overtake their oil fields. Hussein used biological weapons on his own people. He has repeatedly had his military lock their SAMs onto our planes. He has fired missiles into Israel. He has repeatedly attempted to acquire the materials needed for a nuclear weapon. Need I go on?
I assume that the reason you know this is that (1) you have access to classified intelligence information regarding the involvement of various regimes with terrorism, and (2) you've personally run various extensively detailed War-game scenarios, and scenario #7 (Attack Iraq Next) came out a loser, to various other scenarios (Attack Syria Next, Cut Ties With Saudi Arabia Next, Surprise Attack On And Takeover of Canada Next, etc.), in the long haul.
I mean, how else could you support a statement such as "there are other regimes far more worthy of being targeted"? How, exactly, do you know? More to the point: what makes you a more qualified judge of who to attack next then the President, the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Advisor, and people like that? I'm just curious.
Perhaps, or perhaps not. I'd imagine that neither you or I are as informed as Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs concerning this matter. But let's just assume for the sake of argument that you're right, and that other regimes deserve our (military) attention more than Iraq does. What makes you think that these regimes (like Saudi Arabia or Syria) aren't on our hit list as well? Did it ever occur to you that it just may not be strategically viable to go after these "more worthy" regimes first?