Reply #123: It's already happened, hasn't it?

[The Backlash Cometh]

With 9/11. Once our sovereignty was violated we were obligated to retaliate, because, if we didn't, these retaliations would have continued. This is why Clinton was criticized for not attacking bin Laden sooner. The person who spoke, who was either a General or Richard Clark, claimed, that because bin Laden got away with one attack, he just kept attacking.

Also, one major flaw in Chomsky's reasoning is that Bush was a democratically elected leader (albeit, that's debatable on this forum), where bin Laden was not. I think they call it, a head of state. This was one of those lawyered strategies that Clinton used to justify his desire to go after bin Laden once he set his mind to do it. Bin Laden was not a head of state, therefore, there was not as much red tape to go after him.

The Iraqis on the other hand, would have a better argument to go after Bush because Sadaam was a head of state and Bush went after him unprovoked.