This applies because one of the arguments put forth (amid the many) for the invasion of Iraq is that Sadaam is a cruel and murderous dictator. Therefore, if this is reason for war, then it stands to reason that all murderous, cruel dictators are subject to forceful removal by the US military. So to go back to your analogy, the Bush administration is saying that your tire must be changed because it is black. This begs the question - why not change all tires? In other words, Vin's argument has validity because the Bush administration used the excuse in this way. If they hadn't, that would be a different story.
Hint, the reason that you statement is false resides in the emphasized words.
Certainly they are subject to removal. But wisdom and limited resources demand that we choose carefully which ones to forcefully remove. Take out one, and the others tend to get the message. It's efficient leadership and it helps to avoid 9-11s by nipping them in the bud before they can ripen and spread noxious seeds.
With respect, I don't think you quite grasped my argument. It is a logical fallacy that if fact A is a motivation for action B, then you are committed to action B whenever fact A occurs. This is especially true if fact A is only one in a large number of such motivations for action B.
That Saddam Hussein is murderous dictator is undeniable and is certainly one good reason for intervention. That does not imply that we are obligated to such intervention every time there is a murderous dictator. Were that the only motivation for intervention one might complain that to do so in case 1 and not in case 2 is inconsistent, barring other considerations such as practicality, but it is not logically false. This is the "foolish consistency" that Emerson quite rightly termed "the hobgoblin of little minds."