... is because targets outside the "no-fly" zone were hit - and very near to Baghdad.
The thing most people here seem to be missing is that the U.S. and British planes have been bombing Iraq inside the no-fly zones regularly during Clinton's entire stay in office.
Remember when Iraq booted the U.N. inspectors, and was subsequently attacked? Remember how the media had it splashed on every front page? The reason it was such a big deal is because it was the first time Iraq had been bombed in quite awhile. After that, the U.S., with a pretty good understanding of the media, made the decision to start bombing Iraq on a very regular, almost predictable schedule.
The result? After a few such attacks, the press grew bored with it. You rarely see more than a back page blurb anymore. I don't agree with it, but if you want to keep out of the public eye it was a brilliant decision.
Now, Bush, upon entering office, was probably advised to make some sort of statement to Saddam that he wasn't going to be a pushover. In order to do that, you need to generate some press. How do you do that, though, when the press has been desensitized to the weekly bombings? Well, in this case, the planes were ordered to launch standoff weapons from inside the no-fly zone to hit targets outside it.
Maybe there were high value targets posing a threat to U.S. and British aircraft. Maybe not. But I bet you the attack would've happened either way. This is simply a case of a new president establishing himself -- toeing a line in the dirt, so to speak.
It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything.