Well, I would say he gets some of it.
I'm not keen on idea of using US miltary power against human right abusers. Our Miltary is for the security of the USA. We use it or threaten to use it, in order to defend our national interests. I suppose if you are limiting it to sanctions as far as miltary power (and sanctions is using miltary power) then I would be more favorable to this idea. If Saddam had not invaded Kuwait- and thereby involved us in this matter, then I can't see a justification for using our miltary power against his regime.
And if Saddam had not violated the cease fire agreement, again, I think the "legal problem" and political problem of using miltary power against his regime would be problematical. If Saddam had eagerly fulfilled the cease fire from the very beginning, I don't think I could even support our involvement with the Kurds.
In summary, Saddam threaten international order, the very same international order that was also "protecting" his right to rule. If Saddam had not threaten international order, then his "internal affairs" would not trump the need to maintain international order. The exception to this would be if there was so much disorder that the state was in "a questionable status" [caution, slippery slope].
Now if the UN wants to "go into this region" and the US wants to supports the UN, then MAYBE doing something about "human right abuse" could legally and politically justified. I would say that could be said to be one of the main reasons US and Britian wanted to involve the UN with Iraq, but of course, the UN ran away from this responsibility.