{"id":27639,"date":"2007-11-28T01:01:01","date_gmt":"2011-05-19T04:35:28","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2011-05-19T04:35:28","modified_gmt":"2011-05-19T04:35:28","slug":"clinton_pathology_or_sabotage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/11\/28\/clinton_pathology_or_sabotage\/","title":{"rendered":"Clinton: Pathology or Sabotage?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

RUSH: Bill Clinton. He\u2019s in Iowa on a campaign swing for his wife Hillary. It\u2019s beginning to look more and more like this woman cannot win without him — and, in fact, they\u2019re making that pretty plain. I don\u2019t know if they realize this, but Clinton tagging along everywhere she is has made it obvious she can\u2019t handle this on her own, and our buddy Ron Fournier at the AP has a story today, ”Good Bill\u2019 vs ‘Bad Bill,” and he followed him around in some of these speeches that Clinton\u2019s making. ‘Clinton told 400 Iowans at the start of his three-city swing, ‘I have had a great couple of days out working for Hillary.\u2019 In the next 10 minutes, he used the word ‘I\u2019 a total of 94 times and mentioned ‘Hillary\u2019 just seven times in an address that was as much about his legacy as it was about his wife\u2019s candidacy. He told the crowd where he bought coffee that morning and where he ate breakfast. He detailed his Thanksgiving Day guest list, and menu. He defended his record as president, rewriting history along the way. And he explained why his endorsement of a certain senator from New York should matter to people. ‘I know what it takes to be president,\u2019 he said, ‘and because of the life I\u2019ve led since I\u2019ve left office.\u2019 I, me and my.\u2019 It was about him, and in the context of opposition to ‘Republican-backed tax cuts for the wealthy,\u2019 like himself, which he pointed out again, ‘and how that loss of revenue affected financing for the military,\u2019 Bill Clinton said this:<\/p>\n

CLINTON: Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers. So what did we do? We borrowed the money to give Bill Clinton a tax cut and pay for our soldiers.<\/p>\n

RUSH: This, folks, is almost undecipherable. But if you can read the stitches on a fastball, then you understand what he\u2019s saying. I think he just said that he couldn\u2019t support the troops because he didn\u2019t get a tax increase! Well, that\u2019s what he wants people to think that he said. (Clinton impression) ‘Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers.\u2019 By the way, he did support the war in Iraq. This is as pathological as I\u2019ve ever heard him. This is as blatant a lie as I\u2019ve ever heard Clinton utter, and there are countless people all day long today trying to figure out, ‘Is he trying to sabotage her candidacy with this, or is he really so pathological that he thinks that whatever he says is the truth?\u2019 If you go to his Library and Massage Parlor website (we did this this morning) his quote from 2003 is still up: ‘I supported the president when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.\u2019 May 18th, 2003. It\u2019s still on the website, or it was this morning, at the Library and Massage Parlor. Other quotes from Bill Clinton. Let\u2019s go back to 1998 when he was president. <\/p>\n

February 17th, speaking to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Pentagon staff, he said, ‘If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq\u2019s weapons of mass destruction program. We have to defend our future from these predators of the Twenty-first Century. They\u2019ll be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There\u2019s no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.\u2019 April 16th, 2003, New York Daily News the source: ‘Saddam is gone, and good riddance, former President Clinton said yesterday. Clinton said Bush should not be faulted as banned weapons of mass destruction are not found. ‘I don\u2019t think that you can criticize the president for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. That\u2019s what I was always told.” Bill Clinton, New York Daily News, April 16th, 2003! May 18th, 2001, at a college commencement: ‘I supported the when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.\u2019 TIME Magazine, June 28th, 2004, ‘So you\u2019re sitting there as president, you\u2019re reeling in the aftermath of September 11th, so, yeah, you want to go get Bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that, but you also have to say, ‘Well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks can\u2019t reach chemical and biological weapons, or small amounts of fissile material. I\u2019ve gotta do that. That\u2019s why I supported the Iraq thing.” Bill Clinton, June 28th, 2004, TIME Magazine: ‘That\u2019s why I suspected the Iraq thing.\u2019 Ed, grab number seven again. I want to read these last two sentences. (Clinton impression) ‘I gotta do that. That\u2019s why I supported the Iraq thing.\u2019<\/p>\n

CLINTON: Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support soldiers. So what did we do? We borrowed the money to give Bill Clinton a tax cut and pay for our soldiers.<\/p>\n

RUSH: The next audio sound bite is President Clinton September 27th, 2002. This is on tape.<\/p>\n

CLINTON: This guy is… He\u2019s got a very dangerous program. We need to eliminate it.<\/p>\n

RUSH: He\u2019s talking about Saddam Hussein, the weapons of mass destruction. Now, let\u2019s talk about the politics of this. Folks, do we really want four more years or eight more years of this kind of psychobabble? I really do not want it. I don\u2019t want to be forced to have to spend time, after time, after time chronicling all these lies, the pathology behind it. So let\u2019s move on. What is the purpose here? What in the world…? Did he slip up in the context of talking about tax cuts for the rich? And, by the way, revenue poured into the Treasury! This business that they had to borrow money to give Bill Clinton a tax cut? That\u2019s another lie! It\u2019s a lie within a lie. Hell, sometimes I think the whole life these people live is a lie. But is he trying to sabotage Hillary? Everybody\u2019s buzzing about this. Some of the Drive-Bys are circling the wagons and parsing his words. <\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: So Bill Clinton, ‘Even though I approved of Afghanistan, I opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers.\u2019 This is in the context of opposition to tax cuts, so he\u2019s actually saying that he couldn\u2019t support the troops because he got a tax cut, or you could say he didn\u2019t support the troops, or couldn\u2019t support the troops, because he didn\u2019t get a tax increase. This is the lamest — I don\u2019t care how you analyze it — it\u2019s the lamest excuse for not supporting the troops. He could also say, ‘I wasn\u2019t given the opportunity to support those soldiers.\u2019 Watch \u2019em come back and say that what the former president meant was that the White House did not ask him to make troop visits. That\u2019s how they\u2019ll try to spin it. ‘That\u2019s what I was talking about, you\u2019re exactly right, Limbaugh, you understand me, and you got it. I wish you were my spokesman. In fact, if you ever give up that radio thing, I got big plans for you.\u2019 <\/p>\n

Well, let\u2019s listen to the Drive-Bys and how they are trying to spin for it. What is this, on PMSNBC today, the anchor, Tamron Hall, talking to National Journal contributing Editor Linda Douglass, big Drive-By babe, huge Drive-By babe, used to be at ABC. (interruption) She what? Snerdley, you are warped. You are literally warped. You can\u2019t — no. I\u2019m talking about Linda Douglass. She used to be at ABC. Never mind, folks, you don\u2019t want to know what we\u2019re talking about. Limit the interruptions here. ‘So, Linda, President Clinton has called the invasion a big mistake since 2005, but that has not always been the case. Did President Clinton slip up, as some people are saying, on the campaign trail, is he presenting a different side to his opinions of the war in Iraq?\u2019<\/p>\n

DOUGLASS: Well, it all depends on which ones of his public statements you look at. He did make statements early on that appeared to be supportive of President Bush, appeared to be supportive of a fairly muscular approach. He made some statements after that that appeared to question whether or not it was a good idea to go into Iraq. He\u2019s probably been fuming that he\u2019s, from his point of view, been misunderstood in terms of how he reacted initially, and he also is saying through his aides that he certainly wouldn\u2019t want to do anything — he even knows what it\u2019s like to be commander-in-chief — he wouldn\u2019t want to undermine a commander-in-chief.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Wouldn\u2019t want to undermine a commander-in-chief? What the hell did he and Gore do, traveling all over the country in 2003 and 2004 ripping the very Iraq war that he said he supported? We\u2019ve got the quotes. (Clinton impression) ‘That\u2019s why I supported the Iraq thing.\u2019 In fact, former Mr. President, let me ask you this: Is it better to oppose the war after the troops are already on the battlefield, because that\u2019s what he did, especially in the 2003-2004 campaign going over to Abu Dhabi and Dubai and accepting 350 grand to make speeches. He rips American foreign policy and he comes back home and tells college audiences a whole different story. Wouldn\u2019t want to undermine a sitting president? Let\u2019s not leave it to just Der Schlick Meister. Let\u2019s go to the candidate herself — that\u2019s Mrs. Clinton — September 15th, 2002, Meet the Press, Tim Russert, this before the war broke out: ‘Do you believe we could have disarmament without regime change?\u2019<\/p>\n

HILLARY: I doubt it. I can support the president. I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it\u2019s in the long-term interests of our national security.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Then October 10th, 2002, Senate floor, Senator Clinton said this about Saddam.<\/p>\n

HILLARY: In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. It is clear, however, that, if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Right. And now they\u2019re denying all this. Now he\u2019s back to saying he opposed it, flat out, which he did not. Again, TIME Magazine, June 28th, 2004. (Clinton impression) ‘So, yeah, I mean, you\u2019re sitting there as president, you are a reeling in the aftermath of 9\/11, so, yeah, you want to go get Bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that, but you also have to say, ‘Well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network, other terrorist networks can\u2019t reach chemical and biological weapons, I gotta do that, that\u2019s why I supported this Iraq thing.\u2019 I know that there would be endless material, but I really don\u2019t want four more years. I just can\u2019t handle this, but you know what\u2019s frustrating about it, they get away with this. This was eight years of this stuff, and the American people gave these clowns a 60 approval rating, and that was what was so damn frustrating. We had stories about how lying is good. Now we\u2019ve got a story, deniability is good. Remember I talked about that yesterday? In a personal relationship, your spouse is doing something you know is wrong, deny it, just pretend it\u2019s not there, because to talk about it creates friction. I\u2019m gonna do that story in greater detail. I promised to get to it yesterday, didn\u2019t get a chance to get to it yesterday. <\/p>\n

So, anyway, everybody is all over this today talking about it. Here\u2019s ABC\u2019s The Note: ‘Bill Clinton\u2019s off-message again with his odd remarks that he was against the Iraq war from the start, giving Republicans fresh fodder as they seek to become anti-Hillary candidates at tonight\u2019s GOP debate, according to ABC\u2019s senior political reporter Rick Klein. Mitt Romney, leading in the early state polls gets fresh scrutiny on his Mormon faith and still no big speech to answer the question.\u2019 I\u2019m going to have some comments about that. This religion stuff, can I ask you, why do we never ask about the religion of Democrats? Why is Democrats\u2019 religion — the fact that they don\u2019t have any — their liberalism is their religion. Liberalism is an ideology that replaces religion. If you want to understand liberalism, that\u2019s the simplest way to understand it. It is a belief system, it\u2019s an ideology that is rigid, allows no other interpretation of events, and its purpose is to replace religion. And what does religion contain? It contains standards, it contains morality, contains codes of conduct, and that\u2019s what Democrats don\u2019t want to be held to at all. So their ideology replaces religion. That\u2019s why they\u2019re never held accountable for any standards. They can lie, they can cheat, they can have little affairs with pages in the House of Representatives and be honored for it, as breaking new ground. It is a replacement for religion, and yet their religion never, ever comes up, only the religion of Republicans. <\/p>\n

Chris in Bernard, Iowa, you\u2019re first as we lead off on the phones today. It\u2019s great to have you here.<\/p>\n

CALLER: Hey, thanks, Rush. I was at a second speech that President Clinton made last night in Peosta, Iowa, and his comment about being against the Iraq war wasn\u2019t an aberration in the first speech. He made it again in the second speech. So it wasn\u2019t a blip or it wasn\u2019t a departure from his standard speech.<\/p>\n

RUSH: So it wasn\u2019t something he misspoke about?<\/p>\n

CALLER: No, no, not at all.<\/p>\n

RUSH: You were at the second speech?<\/p>\n

CALLER: I was. I was an infiltrator.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Infiltrator. Cool. <\/p>\n

CALLER: I planned a caucus for Republicans, but it was an opportunity to see a former president.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Hey from what I read about Iowa, anybody anywhere can go to a caucus any time.<\/p>\n

CALLER: Well, I hear you can show up and vote in New Hampshire even if you don\u2019t live there.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Right. Exactly. They can bus you in.<\/p>\n

CALLER: Yes, exactly.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Question: What did he actually say in the second speech about opposing the war?<\/p>\n

CALLER: The war, he said it several times, that he was originally against the Iraq war, he reiterated his support for Afghanistan, and that we shouldn\u2019t be in Iraq now, we should be focusing on catching Bin Laden and, you know, yada, yada and —<\/p>\n

RUSH: Was this comment made in the context of criticizing Republican tax cuts?<\/p>\n

CALLER: Well, he did say that if we hadn\u2019t cut taxes, that we wouldn\u2019t be having to borrow so much money from foreign governments to finance the war.<\/p>\n

RUSH: (laughter) All right, so it\u2019s purposeful, then. I appreciate this input, Chris.<\/p>\n

CALLER: Hey, thanks Rush, and one other thing, my husband just retired from 20 years of active duty in the Air Force, and —<\/p>\n

RUSH: You don\u2019t sound old enough to have a husband, much less one that has just retired.<\/p>\n

CALLER: I am. I\u2019m just past 40. But I want to thank you for all you do for the troops. We always really appreciated it through the years.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Thank you.<\/p>\n

CALLER: Thank you.<\/p>\n

RUSH: You\u2019re doing the Lord\u2019s work here today by infiltrating that Clinton speech.<\/p>\n

CALLER: They made me put a sticker on my coat before they let me in. They said it was my ticket to come in, and I tried to say no, and I just spent most of the speech kind of wadding it up in my pocket.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Yeah, I can relate. I can understand. I wad a lot of things up in my pocket. All right, look, I appreciate the call out there, Chris. So you\u2019ve got two instances of this now, so it\u2019s done purposefully. He is purposely lying about this. And that means a lot of things politically, but one is Hillary is in trouble with the base on the anti-war stuff. Hillary is in trouble. Look, they\u2019re always a week ahead, with their internal polls and so forth, oh, and Zogby has fired back. John Zogby\u2019s fired back at Mark Penn. This is great, too. <\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: There\u2019s another theory here is that I have evolved to explain Bill Clinton and his rampant lying. By the way, there is a distinction. In the nineties, when Clinton was out there telling whopper after whopper, the press just covered. They covered for him. In fact, they sat back and they did stories; they marveled at what a great liar he was. But now they\u2019re calling him on this, all the Drive-Bys. I mean, he\u2019s got some circling the wagons. You\u2019ve got TIME Magazine. You\u2019ve got ABC. Everybody is calling him on this. AP\u2019s Ron Fournier ripped him to shreds today in the ”Good Bill\u2019 vs. ‘Bad Bill” story. So that\u2019s different. That\u2019s going to come as a surprise. The Clintons are used to getting a pass on this kind of stuff from their buds in the Drive-Bys. But it also could be nothing more complicated than this: Maybe he\u2019s just panicked. If Hillary\u2019s defeated, he is defeated. If Hillary is defeated, his chance of getting back in the White House is fini. So he\u2019s out there stumping around doing all these things. Now, when you\u2019re in a panic state, you sometimes say impolitic things. But now that he\u2019s saying this twice in one day; it does appear to be calculated. (interruption) What, program observer? (interruption) Yes. (interruption) Mmm-hmm. A question is being asked: ‘Why would he want to go back to the White House?\u2019<\/p>\n

Snerdley says, ‘You know this guy better than himself. Why would he want to go back to the White House?\u2019 If he wants to go back White House, it\u2019s power, baby. It\u2019s power. He\u2019s a sixties generation anti-war guy. This is their last chance to remake the country. You can\u2019t remake the country in the image you want it to be making speeches in Abu Dhabi. You can\u2019t do that. He\u2019s got a lot of money now so he doesn\u2019t care about that. He doesn\u2019t care about popularity. He cares about popularity, but he thinks he\u2019s going to be more popular than ever if he gets back in the White House. That\u2019s ultimate power. That\u2019s what these people are about. I\u2019m stunned, Mr. Snerdley, that you, of all people, don\u2019t understand the lure of power and what these people want to do with it. Besides, he won\u2019t actually have to be in the White House, which is a bonus. He will have power as though he\u2019s in the White House, but he will be all over the world. Hillary will make sure of that. You see if she loses, none of this happens, and he\u2019s just a former president without a future that involves the presidency or his wife having a future. Look, it\u2019s just a theory. It\u2019s just a theory to explain all this. Another theory is, he doesn\u2019t want to go to the White House; has no desire for any of this, he\u2019s happy catting around right now and the sooner Hillary loses and gets out of this race — the more he can date, the more he can do, whatever, I don\u2019t know — and is trying to sabotage her. Because, look, she\u2019s on the record as supporting the war, too, and he\u2019s out there saying (Clinton impression), ‘I opposed that. I flat-out opposed that from get-go. Everybody, even Limbaugh,lied to you about this today! I opposed the war.\u2019 Here, grab sound bite number 12. We\u2019ve played this bite for you before. This is March 7th, 2003, before the war started. Hillary Clinton had a meeting with Code Pink, which is a bunch of anti-war rabble-rousers. They recorded this on a cheap cell phone, so the audio is not the best.<\/p>\n

HILLARY: There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being, uh, put into harm\u2019s way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm — and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available; talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn\u2019t believe should be in any way a part of this decision. I would love to agree with you, but you can\u2019t based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Now, the important thing about this is that she had signed a resolution authorizing the use of force. Now she\u2019s running around saying, ‘I didn\u2019t mean for the president to use force. I meant for him to take time with weapons inspectors.\u2019 Here she is a few days before the invasion telling Code Pink the only way to get rid of the guy is militarily and with an invasion, and that she wasn\u2019t lied to. She used the intelligence information that she had available, talked to people whose opinions she trusted. So these people are on the hook here. And for Clinton to bring this up is, it still remains a huge curiosity. On his website yesterday, John Zogby: ‘All is fair in love and war, the centuries-old proverb states. Politics is not included, but given the way the game is played in modern-day America, maybe it should be. That\u2019s the sense I had again this morning watching Mark Penn, the chief political strategist for Democrat Hillary Clinton, denigrate our latest Zogby Interactive survey simply because it showed his client in a bad light. Penn made the contention on the MSNBC morning news program hosted by Joe Scarborough. <\/p>\n

‘Penn mischaracterized this latest online Zogby poll as our first interactive survey ever — a bizarre contention, since we have been developing and perfecting our Internet polling methodology for nearly a decade, and since Penn\u2019s company has been quietly requesting the results of such polls from Zogby for years.\u2019 Now, remember, Penn went on Scarborough\u2019s show and said (paraphrased), ‘You shouldn\u2019t even be talking about this poll, Joe. It\u2019s an Internet poll. It\u2019s the first time they\u2019ve ever done it. It\u2019s not scientific. It\u2019s not credible. You shouldn\u2019t even be talking about it.\u2019 He\u2019s been asking Zogby for the results! ‘We always comply as part of our pledge to give public Zogby polling results to any and every candidate and campaign that asks for them. What is interesting is that no other campaign has made as many requests for Zogby polling data over the years than [Mark] Penn has made on behalf of [Hillary] Clinton.\u2019 So what he was trying to tell Scarborough is: ‘You don\u2019t put this poll data on here that shows my client losing. You just don\u2019t do that, Joe. This poll doesn\u2019t show anything.\u2019 Mark Penn can\u2019t even tell the truth. Nobody in this campaign can tell the truth! If their life depended on it, I don\u2019t think they could tell the truth.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: We\u2019re also speculating here during the break about Ron Fournier of the Associated Press, who really today… I read you brief portions of his report on Clinton\u2019s lie about what he said about his support or opposition to the war in Iraq, back in 2003. (Clinton impression) ‘I flat-out opposed that war from the get-go.\u2019 Ron Fournier followed Clinton around, and this is not flattering at all, talks about how Clinton\u2019s out there campaigning for his wife, but mentions his own name or pronoun, personal pronoun 97 times while mentioning Hillary\u2019s name seven. He talks about where he went for Thanksgiving, who the guest list was, all these things; where he had coffee that morning. It was ‘I, I, I,\u2019 and ‘me, me, me.\u2019 You know these are the people that covered for Clinton all during the nineties. This is the kind of coverage that Bill Clinton would never get from the Drive-By Media in the nineties. They would marvel instead at how able he was to connect with that crowd and hold them in the palm of his hand. He was able to speak to that crowd for hours, with not a single word written down — and note the power, the literal power of Bill Clinton ‘crackling from his jeans,\u2019 as was once written by a Washington Post reporter when Clinton was out on Catalina Island. So this Ron Fournier piece. This is quite interesting, because this is not covering for him. <\/p>\n

So began to wonder, ‘Why? What\u2019s changed here?\u2019 I mean, this is a wild guess — and if I\u2019m right about this, it\u2019s only temporary — but it\u2019s almost like these guys, some of them, might actually feel a little dirty now. They covered up for this guy for eight years, and they know it, and they feel like whores. They feel like sluts, and they\u2019re not going to be used again. It\u2019s a different media climate and playing field out there, now. It\u2019s only temporary. Battered wives, they\u2019ll run away from house but they end up back there, and battered liberals do the same thing. There are so many battered liberals out there, but they never abandon the Democrats. So Fournier and his buddies will eventually be back in the fold. But this, this is unique. You didn\u2019t get this kind of coverage about the Clintons. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

RUSH: Bill Clinton. He\u2019s in Iowa on a campaign swing for his wife Hillary. It\u2019s beginning to look more and more like this woman cannot win without him — and, in fact, they\u2019re making that pretty plain. I don\u2019t know if they realize this, but Clinton tagging along everywhere she is has made it obvious […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":25,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"categories":[],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nClinton: Pathology or Sabotage? - The Rush Limbaugh Show<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/11\/28\/clinton_pathology_or_sabotage\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Clinton: Pathology or Sabotage? - The Rush Limbaugh Show\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"RUSH: Bill Clinton. He\u2019s in Iowa on a campaign swing for his wife Hillary. It\u2019s beginning to look more and more like this woman cannot win without him — and, in fact, they\u2019re making that pretty plain. I don\u2019t know if they realize this, but Clinton tagging along everywhere she is has made it obvious […]\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:image\" content=\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/01125107.Par.89380.ImageFile.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/\",\"name\":\"The Rush Limbaugh Show\",\"description\":\"Excellence In Broadcasting\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/11\/28\/clinton_pathology_or_sabotage\/#primaryimage\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/01125107.Par.89380.ImageFile.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/01125107.Par.89380.ImageFile.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/11\/28\/clinton_pathology_or_sabotage\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/11\/28\/clinton_pathology_or_sabotage\/\",\"name\":\"Clinton: Pathology or Sabotage? - The Rush Limbaugh Show\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/11\/28\/clinton_pathology_or_sabotage\/#primaryimage\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-19T04:35:28+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2011-05-19T04:35:28+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/11\/28\/clinton_pathology_or_sabotage\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/11\/28\/clinton_pathology_or_sabotage\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/11\/28\/clinton_pathology_or_sabotage\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Clinton: Pathology or Sabotage?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/author\/admin\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Clinton: Pathology or Sabotage? - The Rush Limbaugh Show","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/11\/28\/clinton_pathology_or_sabotage\/","twitter_card":"summary","twitter_title":"Clinton: Pathology or Sabotage? - The Rush Limbaugh Show","twitter_description":"RUSH: Bill Clinton. He\u2019s in Iowa on a campaign swing for his wife Hillary. It\u2019s beginning to look more and more like this woman cannot win without him — and, in fact, they\u2019re making that pretty plain. I don\u2019t know if they realize this, but Clinton tagging along everywhere she is has made it obvious […]","twitter_image":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/01125107.Par.89380.ImageFile.jpg","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/","name":"The Rush Limbaugh Show","description":"Excellence In Broadcasting","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/11\/28\/clinton_pathology_or_sabotage\/#primaryimage","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/01125107.Par.89380.ImageFile.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/01125107.Par.89380.ImageFile.jpg"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/11\/28\/clinton_pathology_or_sabotage\/#webpage","url":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/11\/28\/clinton_pathology_or_sabotage\/","name":"Clinton: Pathology or Sabotage? - The Rush Limbaugh Show","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/11\/28\/clinton_pathology_or_sabotage\/#primaryimage"},"datePublished":"2011-05-19T04:35:28+00:00","dateModified":"2011-05-19T04:35:28+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/11\/28\/clinton_pathology_or_sabotage\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/11\/28\/clinton_pathology_or_sabotage\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/11\/28\/clinton_pathology_or_sabotage\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Clinton: Pathology or Sabotage?"}]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#personlogo","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"url":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27639"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/users\/25"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27639"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27639\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27639"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27639"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27639"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}