[swheats]

Saddam was a dictator

Yes, and the fact he was pulled out of a hole was such poetic justice considering the millions he had put into lavish palaces.

Saddam is an easy target, while bin Laden is a bit harder since he does have that emotional support from his followers. Maybe that is why the Admin what after Saddam - he was a threat (although not as big - even Clinton said this), but was easier to destroy.

Not fully understanding your point. You write as though we didn't go after bin Laden at any time.

[graf008]

In my last post I kinda argued to myself why we went after Saddam more so than we went after bin Laden (based on milkitary and economic resources). This doesn't mean we didn't go after bin Laden - just less so.

Saddam was a much easier target. And it was easy to think that once we toppled him, we could build a stable country in Iraq since there was no (or little) 'cult of Saddam'.

We kill bin Laden - he is becomes a martyr. Attacks will be done in his name. What we need to do is destroy the whole network. This is not a simple task - and certainly much harder than overthrowing a two-bit dictator. And therefore, we went after Saddam first as an easier target and now could devout resources to wiping out al Quada.

[ldish]

actually....bush was the first and only president to go after and continue to go after bin laden......bill whatever never did...too busy being blown and trying to be everything to all people all the time....mr feel good, mr glad hander.......