How is it "damned if you do" if he had gone after Osama Bin Laden with as much energy as has been wasted in Iraq? The man behind 9-11 is still at large while we dump billions of dollars and thousands of lives (on top of those already lost in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and on the flight that crashed in PA). I just don't understand how it is a lose/lose scenario when one of the options would have appeased the American public while actually addressing the cause of the attacks against us.
The only rationale I can come up with for the diversionary tactics used to alter the publics perception of the "threat" (from Al Quaeda and Osama to Iraq and Hussein) is that the administration had it's own agenda not necessarily tied to the "reasons" (given) for their actions, and said agenda needed an excuse to make it seem legitimate in order for them to be able to pursue it (without immediate repercussions from the American people and legislature).
Third times a charm
The only rationale I can come up with for the diversionary tactics used to alter the publics perception of the "threat" (from Al Quaeda and Osama to Iraq and Hussein) is that the administration had it's own agenda not necessarily tied to the "reasons" (given) for their actions, and said agenda needed an excuse to make it seem legitimate in order for them to be able to pursue it (without immediate repercussions from the American people and legislature).