The first problem that I have with this hyperbole is that there seemed to be absolutely no problem with Saddam when he directed his arsenal against the "greater evil" of radical Islamic fundamentalism and confined his atrocities to Kurds and the equally threatening Iranians. He was our guy then and we poured all sorts of credit and munitions to bolster his murderous regime - paid for in part with tax dollars and guarantees by the US taxpayer. It was only after he found the avenue of bashing the good ole USA and preying upon rampant antiamericanism [how did that gain so much popular support with all our money and munitions going to all these nice despots?].
The second and most important problem I have with this misbeggoten policy and our rabid support of nonproliferation is that these weapons have absolutely no geopolitical use in today's world - unless one wants to alienate the planet and bring one's regime to a suicidal end. Of what good are these "weapons of mass destruction" if one can't realistically use them and survive? About the only use I can see - other than forcing the "rogue state" to act in a more adult manner - is to deter attacks from a country with a huge military whose only purpose is to serve the financial interests of a very narrow sector of people who bankroll political leaders. Case closed!