Where to even begin with this putrid pile of words...
First, Bush waited 2 years after 9/11 before doing anything with Iraq so its not like he woke up the night after and said "IRAQ!"
Second, the fact of where the 9/11 terrorists came from had anything to do with Iraq. After 9/11 the Bush Administrations statement was that they were going to aggressively persue states who sponsored terrorist action. Not specifically the terrorist action on 9/11, not specifically terrorist action by al-qaeda. Iraq qualified for this as there was history, both past and present, of Sadam financing and supporting terror not to mention the more spurious notions that there may've been contact with him and Al-Qaeda as well.
Third, just because the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi of birth doesn't mean we should've gone after Saudi Arabia. If 5 american born individuals immigrated into China, trained by the Chinese military, financed by the Chinese government, and then came back into America and set off some bombs should we go to war with the United States of America because those 5 happened to ethnically be American, or should we focus on the government that funded and supported them. Which, I should point out, IS what we did as the direct retaliation to 9/11. The DIRECT, immediete response was Afghanistan, not Iraq, whose government did directly have influence into the attack at hand. Iraq was less a direct sult of 9/11 and more a derivative of the War on Terror mantra and philosophy that grew out of that attack. So no, attacking Saudi Arabia simply because thats where these guys were born would've been asinine.
Fourth, the Saudi's are not simply Bush Clan Friends, they're American allies. We have very strong diplmoatic ties with Saudi Arabia and the government there is an ally in the War on Terror. While there are definitely portions of the Saudi population that are problematic the government, by and large, are far more diplomatically alligned to us and useful than say those of iraq, afghanistan, iran, etc. Not only would it have made no sense to retaliate against them simply because the people that did it were from there, but it would've made no sense from a political, diplomatic, and strategic angle as well.
So....was there a point to your post other than to try and bash Bush, rant about the war, and make incredibly inaccurate and factually flimsy comments? Cause I'm not seeing one.