Besides, violence should be the last resort. As Justin said, we should have at least pursued the avenue of potential extradition of Osama by the Taliban. But we ruled that out, thereby assuring the comencement of B-52 sorties. It is those in favor of violence who have to justify their position, since non-violent solutions should always be preferred. I have yet to see such a justification of the bombing. Brett
Without benefit of a formal, legal declaration, the Admin clearly waged war against the Taliban regime, not just al-qaida. But suppose there was no regime, analogous to Somalia. For all practical purposes war could still be waged against al-qaida. War is something more specific than 'the war on drugs' or 'the war on terrorism,' but not so narrow that it couldn't be applied to OBL's network.
As for the bombing, you mean you have yet to see a justification that you accept. There has been plenty of justification offered here. Nor is any needed. You have already lost that debate. It was lost before it started.
In any case, my impression is that bombing anywhere near civilians is largely over. The new peacenik bad politics position is that the U.N. should arrange safe passage to all the bad guys in Kunduz so that justice will be served (not).
SNL is pretty bad these days, but the Rumsfeld/press conference bit was pretty good. It was not really a fair shot at the press, but it was pretty incisive by implication in re: the peace movement.
mbs