Bush's "Clinton moment" with the Taliban funeral

[underpants]

Okay I called it the "Clinton moment" which probably is not the best choice as it adds to all the urban legends the RW is pushing to basically get to the point that President Clinton was to blame for 9/11.

I first heard about this two days ago on Rush Limbaugh's radio show. He segued from talking about "The Path to 9/11" to this story never making the connection (other than sort of mentioning the date at the beginning) to the Bush administration. Seems that the excuse given for not hitting the group of Taliban leaders was that the US doesn't bomb graveyards/funerals. Rush blamed this on both needless nambypamby regulations (read:Clinton) and on "the wall established during the Clinton administration between the CIA and the FBI"


http://donklephant.com/2006/09/13/no-bombs-were-praying/

It now appears that the whole RW machinery is geared up to jump on top of this story before it gets out on its own and isn't properly framed.

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/09/14/whos_to_blame_for_missing_shot_at_taliban_not_bush.php#more

The trio discussed the photo in a segment, teased it throughout their two-hour show, asked guest Newt Gingrich about it, and finally went through all the information again before bringing on Bill Cowan, Fox News military analyst, to give the explanation.

After the big build-up, Cowan said the military couldn't get a plane there in time to strike it before the group broke up, although it was authorized, and that the drone that took the photo was unarmed, although other news organizations have said it was armed.

What was striking was the way Fox News never once blamed "the Bush administration" for the missed opportunity. Fox News won't say anything to raise questions about the way the Bush administration is prosecuting the Afghan war. Had President Clinton been in office, we would have needed a calculator to keep track of the times Bill Clinton would have been blamed.

The second striking aspect of the story was the lack of outrage over publishing of classified information by a newspaper. When The New York Times publishes secret information, Fox News is eager to accuse it of treason. But if a newspaper owned by their boss, Rupert Murdoch, breaches security, it's another matter entirely.


Time to Rewrite the Rules of Engagement
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213887,00.html

U.S. declines Taliban funeral target
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1152AP_Afghan_Taliban_Photo.html

[soothsayer]

1. Notable for being the first 'rule' these crooks ever followed

[Coexist]

2. According to Newsweek, the drone was ARMED:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14823099/
<SNIP>
"Intelligence officers monitoring the footage captured by the armed, unmanned aircraft tell NBC News they were prepared to fire at the group but were prevented from doing so by military rules of engagement that prohibit targeting a cemetery."

[keepCAblue]

3. See duplicate post from 2 days ago..."Rove's Fingerprints"

The second striking aspect of the story was the lack of outrage over publishing of classified information by a newspaper. When The New York Times publishes secret information, Fox News is eager to accuse it of treason. But if a newspaper owned by their boss, Rupert Murdoch, breaches security, it's another matter entirely.

The reason there's no outrage is because this photo was most likely "leaked" by the military (read Rumsfeld) or by Rove. As one DU'er said in another dupe post, "This has Rove's fingerprints all over it."

U.S. Military Investigates Leaked Photo