Well, Bush certainly doesn't believe we should do nothing. That would have been Gore's solution, but Bush is not Gore. So we have to move to get Saddam out. On the other hand, IMO, Saddam has the initiative here, and, in war, the advantage is with the aggressor. Why? Because the victim is taken off guard, and because the aggressor has already figured out a counter to his victim's obvious response. This is why a jumped-up Lance Corporal, failed water-colorist and former street person named Adolph Hitler was able to take over the entire European continent in 12 months, BTW.
Anyway, over a year has passed since 9/11. Team Bush is still playing peek-a-boo with the evidence that Saddam was "connected" with the attacks, never mind the anthrax charade. For example, according to leaks fed to Newsweak, the proof that Mohammed Atta, operational commander for the in-country side of the 9/11 operation, met repeatedly with known Iraqi agent in Prague, incidentally the erstwhile domicile of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, rests with photographs in possession of Czech exiles, whom the FBI doesn't want to talk to because they believe VP Cheney has fantasized the whole Iraq connection. (And, if you believe that story, you'll believe anything.)
Bush has still not announced any plans for an attack on Iraq, which seems to be still many months off, if it ever occurs. It has been reliably reported that the administration is pushing Saddam to take a quiet retirement to some luxurious exile in Algiers, to head off a war. If we do go to war next year against Iraq, there are plenty of ways to do that without forcing Saddam's hand immediately: for example, we could easily do a slow-burn war on the Afghan model, grabbing the North and South No-Fly zones first over the course of a year or two, without forcing a show-down in Baghdad until the run-up to the next presidential election.
Bush is emphasizing his patience ("Saddam Hussein should remember that I'm a very patient man."). What do you think that implies? Remember, by late 2003/early 2004, we will have enough anthrax vaccine on hand to treat 8 million people. We may also have the infrastructure to deliver it in a timely fashion, although that remains to be seen.
Basically, Bush is doing what he can, and what I would expect a reasonable person (not a a Clinton or a Gore) to do in the circumstances. There is no magic bullet to deal with this problem. We have to keep the pressure on, but we can't afford to let things go non-linear before we are good and ready. Everything is a balancing act based upon those two constraints. I believe that, if you look at things in that light, you will have a realistic picture of what is going on here. It won't be "Wham Bam Thank You Saddam!" Forget about the New Moon. This is a very delicate situation, and will be handled accordingly, both from a miltary standpoint and a public perception standpoint.