If Iraq is worthy of a US Military action so then is Iran and Syria. Both "have and still do" support terrorism and "have" the one thing Iraq does not have, "Strategic Ballistic Weapons Platforms". Like Iran's Shihab 3 which Iran tested in 1998 and 2000, which lead to the development of Shihab 4 "ballistic launch vehicle" while Iran's Fajr 5 Rockets are well renown. Syria also has "Scud B ballistic launch vehicles", which the Syrians successfully tested in July of 2001 armed with a "chemical" warhead. Both Countries "have" advanced WMD research programs. Why are we not at least placing severe sanctions on Countries like these even more so than Iraq?
In 2000 and 2001 this was the CIA's stance. What changed?
It was noted in the December 2000 Global Trends Report produced by the National Intelligence Council who reports to the Director of Central Intelligence that; "Iran sees its short- and medium-range missiles as deterrents, as force-multiplying weapons of war, primarily with conventional warheads, and as options for delivering biological, chemical, and eventually nuclear weapons. Iran could test an IRBM or land-attack cruise missile by 2004 and perhaps even an ICBM or space launch vehicle as early as 2001".
AND
"Iraq's ability to obtain WMD will be influenced, in part, by the degree to which the UN Security Council can impede development or procurement over the next 15 years. Under some scenarios, Iraq could test an ICBM capable of delivering nuclear-sized payloads to the United States before 2015; foreign assistance would affect the capabilities of the missile and the time it became available. Iraq could also develop a nuclear weapon during this period."
AND
CIA Director George Tenant in his February 2nd 2000 report to Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding "The Worldwide Threat in 2000: Global Realities of Our National Security" stated. "Iran in the next few years may be able to supply not only complete Scuds, but also Shahab-3s and related technology, and perhaps even more-advanced technologies if Tehran continues to receive assistance from Russia, China, and North Korea". Director Tenant further explains "Some of these terrorists are actively sponsored by national governments that harbor great antipathy toward the United States. Iran, for one, remains the most active state sponsor. Although we have seen some moderating trends in Iranian domestic policy and even some public criticism of the security apparatus, the fact remains that the use of terrorism as a political tool by official Iranian organs has not changed since President Khatami took office in August 1997".
Note the phrase "the most active state sponsor" with reference to Iran not Iraq.