par Rush Limbaugh

10/16/2007

toi know, yesterday I was talking about Mrs. Clinton. Hillary Clinton appeared on The View, and Whoopi Goldberg -- I did not make this connection yesterday. This thought did not hit me until today. But remember when Pelosi was on the montrer with her husband, Paul, out there in the front row, and Whoopi Goldberg a dit that she would like to... Now, look, I'm just going to tell toi what she said. I'm quoting her. She a dit she would like to "do" Pelosi and her husband in a troika, and of course Pelosi had the La Reine des Neiges smile on her face, "Hee-hee-hee." They cut down to Paul, and Paul was -- who knows what he was doing? It was a side view. But that made me realize that Whoopi Goldberg did not say yesterday that she would like to do Hillary, which means that Whoopi is in -- of course, who would? Whoopi must be in the Pelosi camp. I think the fallout from this View appearance just continues, and we've got big Hillary news. She's out there telling bloggers that she's going to get us out of Iraq immediately. The Washington Times has this story where she says she's going to start pulling us out in 60 days. In the debate, the last débats the Democrats had, she a dit there's no way we are going to get out of there par the end of my first term. She's all over the place, and the Drive-Bys, of course, they know this. They're just, "Mmmmm," sealed lips, just ignoring the whole thing.

But Mrs. Clinton, we got her in the stack today. toi know, Hillary Clinton is -- I was thinking about this last night -- the most cheated-on woman in the history of the world. Now, what does that say about her? When I say that to you, "the most cheated-on woman in the history of the world," what do toi conjure up? I mean, besides the raucous laughter. Well, yeah, of course her getting even, but what does it say about her that she's the most cheated-on woman? It's not because she's an innocent victim. toi know, if you're thinking that I'm saying this in a sympathetic way, maybe I should change my tone about this. "The most cheated-on woman in the history of the world!" That means a lot of people feel the need to. A lot of people want to. A lot of people want to get out of that house to go watch football on Sunday afternoon, if toi get my drift. I mean, it's not a sympathetic thing and it's hardly complimentary.

Let's grab a phone call quickly, because at the bottom of the heure we're going to replay the renard interview from this morning, in its entirety. We'll go to érable Grove, Minnesota with Chris. Welcome, sir, it's great to have toi with us.

CALLER: Hey, Rush, how are you? Dittos.

RUSH: Fine. Thank toi very much.

CALLER: The reason I'm calling, toi were just mentioning that Hillary Clinton, the smartest woman in the world, is the most cheated-on woman in the world. And the reality, this is something that I hope comes out plus and more, because she's cheated on because her husband cheated on her, and she said, "Oh, no, no, it didn't happen." Then she a dit the president cheated -- this is what was going on in Iraq, then she found out it wasn't. So when you're saying that she's the most cheated on it's because she's gullible, and people are about to have the suivant president of the United States have men tricking her, and she later goes, "Oh, oh, I'm sorry, I was just gullible. I didn't know that was really happening."

RUSH: Well, it's interesting. She does try to portray it that way. But that's not believable, either. With the track record of infidelity that her husband had, it simply is not believable that she wouldn't believe Monica Lewinsky ou wouldn't believe the story. But the fact that she chalked it up to some vast right-wing conspiracy shows that she makes herself a victim of this stuff and then goes on and tries to redirect the whole focus of attack. They're a team and they protect each other. But the whole point about being cheated on, toi can look at it that way as, yeah, she allows herself to continually be tricked. That's one way of looking at it. I don't think she's knowingly tricked about a whole lot. I think it's something much plus profound than that. We'll discuss it as the program unfolds.

James Taranto, Best of the Web today, from yesterday at OpinionJournal.com: "Consider the following reasons why America might consider military action against Iran: To save Israel from nuclear annihilation. To prevent a nuclear arms race between Iran and neighboring Arab regimes. To keep Iran's mullahs from acquiring a nuclear deterrent. To topple Tehran's repressive, theocratic regime," and another possible reason why America might consider military action against Iran, to "protect America's oil supplies." Now, "What if we told toi one of the presidential candidates accepted the last rationale -- blood for oil! -- but rejected arguments for war based on concerns about human rights ou nuclear proliferation? Based on the media stereotypes, you'd probably think Dick Cheney had thrown his hat in. The Associated Press has the real story from Florence, S.C.: Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton advocated talks to settle differences with Iran but a dit Saturday that Tehran would invite U.S. action if it were to disrupt oil supplies. 'I will make it very clear to the Iranians that there are very serious consequences attached to their actions,' Clinton said. The New York senator, responding to a question, a dit blocking oil shipments 'would be devastating to the world economy.'"

So here's Mrs. Clinton, depending on the audience, depending on who she's speaking to, she will say a different thing. As toi know, the left in this country, the hard-core left, the anti-war left, a lot of the mainstream left, in fact, opposes the whole notion of going to war for oil. No blood for oil. It was a common refrain during the first Gulf War, and it's been a refrain heard during this Iraq war, "Oh, yeah, the only reason they went over there was for oil, buisson, bush and his oil buddies and Halliburton want the oil supply." Pure folly and idiocy. But here's Mrs. Clinton acknowledging, just as she did in a presidential débats when she a dit we can't get out of Iraq before 2013, "I can't make that commitment," now she's saying, (paraphrasing) "The only reason I would threaten Iran with any kind of military action is if they blockade oil supplies ou try to interrupt the world oil supply and distribution. We can't have that." Not to stop them from getting nukes, not to stop them from human rights violations, but to save the free flow of oil at market prices.

Now, the Drive-Bys, for the most part, ignore this. The local AP runs it in South Carolina, but it doesn't get picked up anywhere else. The Drive-Bys are protecting her. This is not, folks, the smartest woman in the world. If there were an active media that were as interested in exposing her idiosyncrasies and foibles as they are everybody else's, then there would already be serious questions raised about her competence, her ability to think and keep things straight, but they are mum on this and a lot of other things to protect her.