Your general point was used against me in a recent debate I was having with a fellow grad student about Iraq. Since some on the Right seem to think that the human rights situation in Iraq is the justification that will get them the most mileage, I pointed out that there are several (though not many) regimes which are about as bad as Saddam's, for which no invasion plans have been made. Basically, my point was--"attack Saddam for being a tyrant? Why aren't you attacking all the other tyrants?" Basically the same reasoning you are rightly criticizing here.

I agree that in the cases you mention (Bush/Saddam, Israel/Palestine, etc.), pointing out wrong in some other person or country is often just a distraction. The question is, e.g.: "Is Israel a consistent human rights abuser or not? We can talk about Palestine after--but let's answer the present question now."

And yet, there is always a reason why one is chosen before the other. The man who questions whether another speeding driver does nothing to exonerate himself, but may be suggestion unfair enforcement on the part of the police officer. In your debate with Deb, you mentioned a few good reasons to talk about Bush in addition to, or rather than Saddam. One, Bush is our elected leader, two, Bush has many times more power than Saddam--relatively small errors by Bush can damage more lives than Saddam ever could.

Part of the problem here is moralizing in inappropriate situations. We moralize about what Palestinians should do--they should get rid of this or that leader, they should stop the terrorism, etc.; but we ignore the extent to which they actually have power to make those choices. Israel may be morally superior to Hezbolla in a pure sense, but their vastly superior power makes their failings much more devastating. If we moralize, focusing only on the subjective evil of political actors (very hard to know at any rate), we are not effectively promoting those situations which are most acceptable to moral people. This is somewhat ironic but true.

There is also a reason why we are attacking Iraq instead of other human rights abusers. Pointing out the discrepancy is not a demonstrative proof against invasion, but it should get us to think about possible reasons for painting Iraq (and not others) as a necessary war.

Exactly. The problem is not with the argument but if the argument is just being used as a distraction. "Let's answer the present question now." The reluctance to have that discussion is where the problem lies. As you rightly point out the discrepancy in the treatment of questions is not proof for or against but may be useful in identifying motives and lead to better understanding.