Glenn Greenwald asks why Bin Laden's crimes against America are deemed uncontroversial (the consensus being that 9/11 was unjustified, criminal and evil), while America's crimes against say, Iraq, are controversial when it seems fairly clear that the latter was far more damaging:
How does one weigh the intentional targeting of civilians that kills several thousand against an illegal, aggressive war that recklessly and foreseeably causes the deaths of at least 100,000 innocent people, and almost certainly far more? Comparisons aside: what is clear is that Bush's crimes are grave, of historic proportion, and it's simply impossible for anyone who believes in the Nuremberg Principles to deny that. His invasion of Iraq caused the deaths of at least 100,000 (and almost certainly more)innocent Iraqis: vastly more than bin Laden could have dreamed of causing. It left millions of people internally and externally displaced for years. It destroyed a nation of 26 million people. It was without question an illegal war of aggression: what the lead prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trials -- asFerencz just reminded us -- called the "the central crime in this pattern of crimes, the kingpin which holds them all together." And that's to say nothing of the worldwide regime of torture, disappearances, and black sites created by the U.S during the Bush years.