Maybe this has something to do with it becoming public knowledge now: Asian markets rise on unsubstantiated rumors of bin Laden capture
That being said. I think it was right not to take Baghdad. That would have unnecessarily enraged SA and possibly provoked Iran. The proper course of action would have been to move the Armored/Airborne Corps towards Basra destroying the Republican Guard. Holding Basra in the South for a temporary period would have allowed an effective opposition to get on track and made it impossible for Sadaam to get his oil to market without our saying so.
I think our current Secretary of State is biggest reason this course of action was not attempted. Schwarzkopf, I am pretty sure desired it and was overruled by Powell. Both Bush 41 and 43 listen to their military leaders and if you have the JCS chairman advising against eradication of Sadaam's hold on power you might listen. Bush 41 should have listened to Schwarzkopf (or been given a chance to listen to Norman's arguments). Schwarzkopf knew far more about the region than Powell could ever dream of and I think Norman was well aware of what the Saudis would have wished for. The Saudis hated Hussein for attacking an Arab neighbor.
One little post war story to give my perspective on what the Saudi people may have been thinking. I was driving around in a HMWWV preparing to go back home. I was stopped by a Saudi soldier at a checkpoint. For some reason he wanted to chat. He asked me what I thought of Sadaam in broken English. I basically said he's a creep. In suddenly very precise English he said, "F*&* Sadaam!" I think most Arabs really dislike this guy. This was your average joe Saudi.
Bush 41 had a very hostile congress (and unfortunately never saw their willingness to undermine him) and a JCS chairman that was a political creature with very little command experience. I think Bush 43 inheirited his tenacity from his mom not Old man Bush. I think and hope he will pursue this to the end.