I hadn't thought about this, but it is certainly an interesting point. I was watching the television earlier, and a guy brought up the issue that Bin Laden might not be the mastermind we think he is. What if he's just a smoke screen to make us believe when he's taken out that the system or alliance that orcestrated these attacks is crippled? What happens then? And is taking out Bin Laden the most important thing to do at this point, or should we try to cripple other nations/states/groups?
The lone gunman theory is always convenient isn't it. I had this same discussion with colleagues about 2 1/2 years ago. It was following the Embassy bombings in Africa. I just thought it was odd that 6 months prior to that I was reading about the most dangerous man in the world - Ossama Bin Laden - in the most middle America periodical "Readers Digest." It was just satirically ironic that this dastardly menace was served up to us prior to the bombings. Without sounding too much like conspiracist theory, if the true culprits were a foreign government such as Iraq or Iran, then it leaves no maneuverability for the administration. They must send in the troops at the cost of maybe 100,000's of lives. By having the crazed lone gunman out there, a much simpler and convenient target exists. One that does not require the complications that an all out war requires. And what if we did find out that Iraq did this? Are we going to bomb Baghdad some more? Didn't the Iraqis have far more incentive anyway to do this. We nearly bombed them into the stone age. We have humiliated them in front of the world. We dictate how they live their lives. What is Bin Ladin's incentive -- "he is a religous radical"? So this guy who was born into one of the richest families in the world decided one day that America was evil and he must take this fight to them from a cave in the Afghan mountains. And while doing it, he must hide his untraceable 100's of millions of dollars. And coordinate 1000's of men in 50 different countries. Wow, I have a hard enough time running my small company. This guy must be superman or gets credit for far too much.
I think the point GW made is that it doesn't matter if bin Laden is repsonsible. He's part of a known terrorist organization, so he'll pay (as will all known terrorist organizations). End o' story.
