Mr Bush you said that Usama bin Laden would be got dead or alive, so far that hasn't occured yet. I would prefer for him to be dead, not alive. How about accomplishing this promise that you made to the AMERICAN people now. Evidently when you made this purely politically motivated statement morally justifiably based on getting justice for the tragic 9/11 attacks, you were already aware that he wouldn't or couldn't be captured by U.S. troops.

Here, Here !!! My thoughts exactly. When will the American people wise up to G W ?

Geez people, it's not like serving an arrest warrant on a celebrity or something. They didn't even find the guy who bombed the Atlanta Olympics until last year . . .

the same thing was said about saddam. "you invaded iraq to get saddam and cant even find him, blah blah blah blah", when he was found it was brushed aside as a political thing. never a word was said by the accusers or any apologys or high fives or nothing, it was if they had never brought up not finding saddam as an issue.

we should of found him, before we got Saddam

osama is the figure head of al qaeda. he does not plan or run the operations, while catching him would be a great event in american history, it would be more symbolic then useful. saddam on the other hand, was dangerous. a megalomaniac in complete control of an oil rich country with hatred for us and everything we stand for. everyone talks about osama and his hundreds of millions, well try saddam and hundreds of billions. I agree taht catching osama is very important, and must be accomplished, even if its just to shut up the big mouth whiners like overdose, but to thikn saddam was just some little dictator who posed no threat to anybody is fucking ignorant.

First of all, Trav you fail to assume that I believe Saddam wasn’t a bad man. I disliked and even hated him. He was a threat to his own people, yes, but not to America. Having no weapons, for he destroyed them like we asked, he is nothing more then an evil dictator who kills his own people. You fail to forget, people in Africa die of aids (thousands a year), 2,000 hungry children die per hour (thanks SOAD), people die all around the world, and we focus on Saddam? We could be doing and helping more men and woman then just in Iraq. To say Iraq is the major priority to save human life is false. You forget, again, that even in America hundreds are killed a year on death row. Should a country attack us for this? What about North Korea, those people don’t have the food or medicine, they deserve and are being killed. I remember Bush calling them, an axis of evil. They hurt their people as much if not more then in Iraq. They have weapons, and have shown them to us. What do we do about them? Why is Iraq a more of a major priority?

Iraq is not apart of terror, or Al Queda. They are not linked to September 11th, and that is the attack we are trying to avenge. To go after Iraq, or Saddam is not under that category. We are not saving human death but we are trying to make America safer. Attacking Iraq is doing nothing more then saving human lives that could be saved anywhere. We are spending billions, and almost our whole focus on Iraq while Osama (who was behind September 11th) run free to strike America again. We could be hunting, and spending 100% on Al Queda and these organizations…and we could be much further in stopping world terror.

Again Trav, don’t twist my words.