Does anyone remember...?

Does anyone remember the arguments leading up to the war in Iraq?
Everyone talks about the weapons of mass destruction and the lies, but think back to exactly what the reasoning was. The Bush administration told us- told everyone that if President Hussein would just let the inspectors do their job, and if Hussein would suspend his weapons programs, we could leave him be. But, because he wouldn't do those two things, we were forced to take action.
We have some really good perspectives on this now. First of all, we know that there weren't any active weapons programs in 2002-2003. We also know that the Bush administration knew this through officials within the administration that have since quit. Now stay with me because my point isn't that we were lied to. That point has been beaten to death. My point is the way an argument was and is being presented.
So presently, we are presented with the fact that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons programs in 2003. When Bush was trying to build support for the war in Iraq, suspending the weapons programs was all that he required, but now that he has proof of Iran suspending its programs, he says that's not enough. He says that they could start it up again.
Is this real? Are we going to act with hostility toward nations that might start a weapons program... and after that might develop nuclear weapons... and after that might attack someone? There are roughly nine nations worldwide that have nuclear weapons, and so far the only people that have ever attacked someone with them is the United States.
Why does the Bush administration think they can get away with this?
They know that you'll let them get away with it. Consistency is irrelevant. Their arguments don't even have to make sense anymore. You've proven you won't stand up and say anything.