Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: I think the implosion that I have been predicting in the Democratic Party happened yesterday. It’s been effervescing there, bubbling up underneath the surface for a long time, and I think they just all came unhinged and unglued yesterday. I’ve noted that the only prominent Democrat out there defending Clinton is another raving lunatic, Howard Dean, who I predict will be institutionalized shortly after this election in November for a sickness that he’s had for oh so long. Greetings, my friends, and welcome. It’s great to have you with us. Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, three straight hours today. The telephone number, 800-282-2882, and the e-mail address is Rush@eibnet.com.
Wow. That interview with Bill Clinton yesterday? Can you imagine how Paula Jones must have felt? Kathleen Willey? ”Purple rage”. That is how George Stephanopoulos described Clinton’s anger in his book when Clinton and Stephanopoulos were both in the White House. It was such an innocuous question, even though Chris Wallace did suggest that it was generated by viewers, people in e-mail. I think that’s actually one of the things that set Clinton off if indeed he was set off. The idea that he was blindsided by this is a bit absurd. He knew he was going on Fox, and he knows what the ground rules are. He’s a former president.
Nothing’s really out of bounds or off limits for these kinds of things. I think, you know, rather than this being a meltdown, I think Clinton’s been waiting for this ever since he first heard that I supposedly helped write The Path to 9/11. I think he’s been waiting to explode, and this was the question in public that he had been waiting for. I think he’s very proud of what he did yesterday. I think Clinton thinks he hit a home run, even though no Democrats are out there defending him. You gotta remember: Clinton’s a pathological liar. His only truth is what he says. The real truth, reality, is not his. His reality is what his memory is, what he constructs it to be.
You could see very plainly how thinly created, how thin the foundation is of his legacy. It all hinges on a mainstream media that covers for him and continues to promote the legacy. But when it came to it yesterday, he could only cite Richard Clarke as a “factual asserter” to make his case. He couldn’t cite the 9/11 Commission, admitting that it was a political document — and we know why it was a political document. The Democrats in that committee were there to hide the lapses of the Clinton administration. I think what happened yesterday on Fox News Sunday. I got the transcript today Saturday night, Saturday afternoon, Saturday night, and I was just — you know, in one way, I was stunned, such an apparent loss of control, such a horrible PR blunder and mistake by the people whose reputation for PR greatness is unsurpassed. The timing of this could not be any worse.

But what we say yesterday is that with Bill Clinton it’s all about him. He doesn’t really care about the impact on the Democratic Party, except maybe for Hillary, and certainly not this election cycle. He’s concerned about himself. He’s concerned about his legacy. It also illustrates my point, and I’ve been making this for years. One of the reasons the Democrats smear people — and that’s what Clinton did yesterday, he smeared “neocons.” Here’s a former president. He may have used the term before, but I’m not aware that he has. “Neocons” is something that kook Democrats, the liberal blogosphere fringe, some in the Drive-By Media use, but we got the earthy Bill Clinton. We got what he really thinks about his political enemies and so forth.
He thinks everything is a vast right-wing conspiracy, as does Hillary. It seems to be one of the pages, one of the old pages in their playbook that they keep going to, sort of like this New York Times story yesterday about the National Intelligence Estimate that basically said what? I mean, it’s been mischaracterized as well. They pull a couple of quotes from it, the New York Times, and try to portray that the whole estimate said what their small little analysis of it said, but it’s really nothing new. It’s just opening the book, the playbook, to an old page, and in this case “Bush is creating the terrorists.” Well, that’s really working, isn’t it? I am dumbfounded here at how they’re so predictable. Everything that they do is predictable.
I got a note from somebody today said, “Well, I think this is the equivalent of the New York Times story the week before the election in 2004 about all these newly found, unexploded weapons and ammunition and so forth, which was an old story, at least a year-and-a-half-old story. They tried to turn the elections on that,” and I said, “No, this is campaign season. The intelligence community is going to keep leaking,” and I told Snerdley today, I said, “You know, the problem with this is not what the Democrats are saying and doing with these leaks. It’s the fact that the leaks are happening. If it is true — that the intelligence community, CIA, DIA, wherever they are, if it’s true — that that they are more interested in destroying a sitting president than they are doing their jobs, then we have a fundamental problem in the intelligence community.
The way the Democrats spin this is really of no concern to me because we’ve heard it all before: Bush lied people died. Bush created terrorists there were no terrorists prior 9/11 blah, blah, blah, and yet we got Bill Clinton out there saying yesterday he was “obsessed with bin Laden” and the Republicans were mad at him for being obsessed with bin Laden — and that’s a lie! Extensive research over the weekend can’t find any example of any Republicans being anything other than supportive of Clinton with his missile strikes, with his warnings of Saddam Hussein. More on that as the program unfolds. But I tell you, for the last 50 years, the Drive-By Media gave no challenge to liberal Democrats. Whatever they asserted, whatever they believed, whatever their policies were, were fawningly promoted — for the most part. There are obviously exemptions to this.

During the same 50 years, conservatives opposing all of this were routinely challenged, questioned, laughed at, made fun of, impugned, and forced to defend their policies — and in the process, learned how to do so in a persuasive way. What we saw yesterday is that Bill Clinton and the Democrats cannot handle tough questions, and that wasn’t even a tough question. As I say the thing Clinton didn’t like about it was that Chris Wallace cried, “I’m getting e-mails from viewers, Mr. President,” and of course Clinton is a liberal Democrat, doesn’t want to hear what people think. He’s trying to change their minds, and I think that’s part of what set him off.
Do you remember at any time in the last five years President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, or any Republican acting the way Bill Clinton did on Fox News Sunday: losing it, intimidating the interview, getting in their space, pointing fingers, jabbing fingers at Chris Wallace’s notes? Wallace said, “I felt like a mountain was falling down on me.” Remember when Hillary debated Rick Lazio, and Lazio walked over and presented her some papers, “You can’t invade her space! Why, that’s sexist. You’re trying to intimidate the girl! You can’t do that.”
Clinton yesterday couldn’t wait to set forward on that chair and jab his finger — very, very unusually long fingers, by the way, too. I think I’m starting to understand why liberal women have a fascination with this guy, but nevertheless — jabbing that finger in an intimidating fashion, those eyes on the verge of madness. Chris Wallace held ground out there, but can you imagine how Juanita Broaddrick felt? The only thing he didn’t say when he left is, “Hey, Chris, better put some ice on that lip.” I understand when he walked out he was still exploding, and this time at his staff. Apparently he thinks he got set up. But you don’t see Republicans respond this way to some of the most vile, mean-spirited, hard-hitting questions ever, and yet Clinton does because he’s not used to it.
It’s a big mistake to react that way, ladies and gentlemen, because all it’s going to do is focus attention on what he said. The biggest mistake they’ve made is acting upset about the movie, The Path to 9/11, and Clinton can’t help it because it’s all about him. It’s not about the Democratic Party, and it’s not about the future of the country or even the safety of the country. It’s about his legacy, and he knows that he doesn’t have anything major that happened in his administration — in terms of war, foreign policy — that’s going to create such greatness in his electrician, so he’s gotta rewrite history about how he was “obsessed with bin Laden.”
At any rate, we got a lot to do. We’ve got the audio sound bites. We’ve got some other things, a lot of research that I’ve done here to try to set all this straight. He’s going to regret having done this. This is not the way they wanted to do this — and keep a sharp eye, because I still don’t think a whole lot of Democrats other than Dean are out there defending him. But in spirit of bipartisanship, ladies and gentlemen, and in the spirit of reaching out to those on the other side of the aisle, demonstrating fairness and understanding: I think we should all admit before we get started with all this that we need to about kind. President Clinton did protect us from those who threatened us greatly.
The Branch Davidians.

*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This