This is something that has puzzled me for some time, but I've yet to find a real answer to. Maybe I'm looking at this all wrong and I'd like to hear from both the left and the right on this one. Didn't Bin Laden claim to be behind the 9-11 attacks? Didn't President Bush vow to track him down and not stop until he was brought to justice? Why then did we (meaning, the US gov't) decide to divert a majority of our military (and military spending) to Iraq before we had caught Bin Laden? Wouldn't the billions of dollars that we've spent in Iraq have been better served in this "war on terror" by pursuing Bin Laden and his organization? Personally, I don't have much of a problem with our invasion of Iraq. WMD or not, I think Saddam is a bastard and deserves what he got. What I do have a problem with is the timing. In my opinion, if Bush had single-mindedly hunted down Bin Laden and captured or killed him, this would have shown all the other terrorists in the world that we mean business. We would still have the support of the world that we had immediately after 9-11, and then we could have gone into Iraq and taken care of business. What am I missing? Did I miss a press conference on this? Has Bush ever given any reasons for giving more importance to Sadam and his now-fictional WMD than to the man who claimed responsibility for 9-11? I really must have missed something, because nobody seems to be talking about Bin Laden any more. Seems weird since he was the one who claimed responsibility for 9-11, not Saddam.