RUSH: From news just after I left the microphone on the Friday before Christmas, Hillary Clinton predicted on Saturday, December 22nd, that just electing her would cut the price of oil. ‘When the world hears her commitment at her inauguration about ending American dependence on foreign fuel, Clinton says, oil-pumping countries will lower prices to stifle America’s incentive to develop alternative energy. ‘I predict to you, the oil-producing countries will drop the price of oil,’ Clinton said, speaking at the Manchester YWCA. ‘They will once again assume, once the cost pressure is off, Americans and our political process will recede.”
Now, I have to tell you, Mrs. Clinton has said a number of things which are just downright ignorant. She has said a bunch of things which are downright scary. This is right up at the top of things that she has said that are ignorant and stupid. If you take this at face value, and I know what she’s doing, she’s out campaigning, she said this in New Hampshire, and she’s out campaigning just as the Breck Girl is on the notion that the middle class is being shafted and that the elites in this country are in bed with the oil producing sheiks in the Middle East. But they’re going to realize, when we get a woman with a testicle lockbox in the Oval Office they’re going to be scared to death and they’re going to lower the price of oil because they will be afraid to deal with Mrs. Clinton. Item number one, the oil producing countries do not determine the price of oil. There is not one producer of oil that determines the price. It is not the director of OPEC, it is not the emir of Abu Dhabi, it’s not Sheik Maktum of Dubai, it is not Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. It’s not anybody in Canada.
There is not one producer of oil that determines the price. There are two things that determine the price of oil on the world markets today. One: The good old laws of supply and demand. Number two: The oil speculators, the commodities market, which are bidding up the price of oil on the futures market, which affects the price, the barrel price in any number of untold ways. But for Mrs. Clinton to suggest that the aura of her presence and the no nonsense testicle lockbox of her presidency will frighten these producers to finally being fair, is simply ignorant.
Now, let’s move on to the Benazir Bhutto assassination. Mrs. Clinton told so many whoppers about being good friends with Benazir Bhutto and having known her for 12 years and so forth. She said, ‘I have known Benazir Bhutto for more than 12 years. She’s someone whom I was honored to visit as first lady when she was prime minister. Certainly on a personal level for those of us who knew her, who were impressed by her commitment, her dedication, her willingness to pick up the mantle of her father who was also assassinated, it is a terrible, terrible, tragedy.’ In the case of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, Mrs. Clinton sought to do what the Clintons do with every big news story and make it about her, make it about them. Here is Benazir Bhutto, who has more cajones than Hillary Clinton’s got even in her testicle lockbox, she is assassinated by militant Islamists, and, by the way, I’ve been away for a while. I don’t know if anybody’s added this perspective. If they have, I apologize for being redundant. But if anybody doubts the aspect of her gender in her assassination in a militant Islamic country, then you are missing one of the key elements of the enemy that we face. Militant Islamists, yes, they opposed her because of her desire for quasi-democracy in Pakistan. They opposed her as well because she’s a woman. She was uppity. She had no business trying to run a country.
The militant Islamists, the seventh-century extreme Muslim despises women, hates them, actually fears them, and the fear then is the result of the hate, or the hate results from the fear. The feminists in this country who analyze world events and domestic events from their prism of gender politics, discrimination and all this, should realize full well, based on this assassination, the full scope of the evil that we face in the enemy that is these militant Islamofascists, the Al-Qaeda types. And yet, Mrs. Clinton had to make this about her. Over the course of recent days, Mrs. Clinton has made it plain that she wants her own independent investigation because we can’t trust Pervez Musharraf, who happens to be our ally. She has made the big blunder of suggesting that Benazir Bhutto was killed so that Musharraf would be unopposed on the ballot because the other opponent’s not going to run at all. Musharraf is not on the ballot! He was elected in October. Mrs. Clinton, so much experience, has traveled so extensively with her husband, oh, and Kosovo. Remember that trip into Kosovo? She was brave; she was courageous; she was on a C-130 that had to corkscrew in there because of terrorist gunfire.
She wasn’t anything of the sort. She was on with Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad and her daughter. We’re supposed to believe that the Clinton White House said, ‘It’s really dangerous over there, we need somebody with guts, send Hillary.’ Manufacturing out of whole cloth a trip to Bosnia, how dangerous it was, when none of it was as she represented it to be. Now to say that Pervez Musharraf may have something to do with Benazir Bhutto’s death because he didn’t want to run opposed in the next elections; he’s not on the ballot, ladies and gentlemen. Pervez Musharraf was elected in October. These elections in Pakistan have now been delayed a month, by the way — these elections are parliamentary. Even Joe Biden suggested yesterday that Mrs. Clinton doesn’t adequately understand recent events in Pakistan. He said, ‘We have a number of candidates who are well-intentioned but don’t understand Pakistan. One of the leading candidates, God love her,’ said, talking about Hillary, ‘they’re good people running, but to say Musharraf is up for election? Musharraf was elected, fairly or unfairly, president six months ago. It’s a parliamentary election. He is not on the ballot. But Mrs. Clinton said on Stephanopoulos’ show Sunday, ‘Musharraf could be the only person on the ballot. I don’t think that’s a real election.” She is clueless!
RUSH: Here’s the story. This is from Newsday, New York Newsday on New Year’s Eve. ‘Ever since Barack Obama suggested Hillary Clinton’s eight years as first lady were a glorified tea party a few days back, she’s looked for an opening to strike back. On Saturday night in Dubuque she [argued] she risked her life on White House missions in the 1990s, including a hair-raising flight into Bosnia that ended in a ‘corkscrew’ landing and a sprint off the tarmac to dodge snipers. ‘I don’t remember anyone offering me tea,’ she quipped. The dictum around the Oval Office in the ’90s, she added, was: ‘If a place was too dangerous, too poor or too small, send the first lady.” Yeah, right, Clinton would purposely send his wife. That’s actually quite possible. In fact, now that I think of it, it’s actually quite possible. Bill Clinton: ‘Is that place dangerous over there? Good! Send Hillary.’ That’s entirely possible. But I digress. She was not alone on this corkscrew landing. By the way, for those of you that don’t know what a corkscrew landing is, I was told when I did my Afghan troop visit that there might be one. It turned out there wasn’t. We flew in to Kabul on a United Nations DC-9. But nevertheless, a corkscrew landing is you’re up there, and rather than have the traditional arrival approach of a steady and slow descent, you’re way up high, and you come almost straight down, corkscrewing to avoid making your aircraft a target for terrorists.
At the proper moment you pull up and you land. ‘It turns out that [Mrs.] Clinton … was, in fact, leading a goodwill entourage,’ not flying solo into harm’s way. On board a plane, a C-17 ‘was Sinbad, singer Sheryl Crow and Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea, then 15, according to an account of the March 1995 trip in her autobiography ‘Living History.’ As the plane approached the runway, the pilot ordered the Clintons into the armored front of the plane, Clinton writes. What’s not clear is whether Sinbad or Crow were invited to the cockpit or had to brave it out in the unprotected rear.’ Ed Morrissey, at Captain’s Quarters, has more on this. He reprints an e-mail from a commenter on his blog, Jonathan Sabin. ‘I was part of Task Force Eagle in Bosnia during that time,’ of Mrs. Clinton’s corkscrew landing. ‘I was part of then MG William Nash, 1st Armored Division, security detail. I take two issues with her statement. First and most blatantly checkable, was the year she states. She’s a year off. It was actually March 1996. We didn’t go into Bosnia until after the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords, which was in the Fall of 1995, (November, I think).
‘I remember it because it ruined Christmas for just about the entire 2nd Brigade, 1st AD, in Baumholder Germany. Then President Clinton actually came to Baumholder right before Christmas to make a speech. It should be easily checkable. Secondly, she landed at Eagle Base in Tuzla, Bosnia in a C-17. At that time, it was the most secure location in the country, being an old Russian MIG base. The compound was very well fortified and snipers weren’t an issue for us. They never were during the entire mission, except maybe in Sarajevo. Our biggest issue was landmines, again, not an issue at Eagle Base as it had been very well cleared. Shameless self promotion is just stupid when things like that are so easily verifiable.’ So it’s just classic Clintonism: Making it all up, and as time goes on, trying to make herself look experienced, and brave, and relevant all at the same time, and it’s just a pack of lies. It’s just a pack of lies.
I’ll tell you, this business about Musharraf? I know what she’s doing. She’s concluding that the Democrat anti-war left hates Musharraf because he’s an ally of us, meaning an ally of Bush, and she thinks that they’re stupid. It’s just like Clinton. You notice Clinton went out there — this is long before we took the break — and he was asked, ‘What’s the first thing Hillary’s going to do?’ He said, ‘The first thing she’s going to do, is she’s going to send me and George H.W. Bush around the world to repair America’s image in the world, and say America is open for business again.’ Well, then, of course, George H.W. Bush pipes up. ‘You haven’t spoken to me about this. I wouldn’t go anywhere. I like our foreign policy,’ as though George H.W. Bush would agree to this, to basically trash his own son’s administration in foreign policy — and not a peep! Not a bleep about it. By the way, Huckabee is getting away with the same kind of thing because the Drive-Bys don’t want to call attention to his weaknesses in that way, saying things that just could easily be refuted. It’s just absurd. That’s the Clintons for you.
Here’s an interesting story, this is from the French News Agency, on the 1st of January: ‘Clinton’s Defining Moment — Hillary Clinton’s moment of destiny is nigh, when her tilt at history and the prize of the White House, will rest for the first time on the sober judgement [sic] of voters. … A decade-and-a-half of dominance of the Democratic Party by the ultimate Washington power couple is also on the line, as are the hopes of her two-term presidential husband Bill Clinton of shaping his own legacy. … Clinton, 60, is presenting herself as an agent of change for a new century, despite looking back to the 1990s for much of her political philosophy. She is the woman Americans most admire, according to a recent poll, yet she provokes venomous attacks by enemies and rolling hours of bile on conservative talk radio.’ I don’t know who wrote this. It’s the French News Agency. The bottom line is, she has the greatest negatives, the highest negatives of any person that’s ever sought the White House. I guess this is the fault of the ‘rolling hours of bile on conservative talk radio.’ But let’s take a look some of Hillary’s defining moments. They say this is her defining moment, running for president. I can’t think of all the examples, ladies and gentlemen. There are so many examples of Hillary defining moments, it blows my mind. But how about just taking a second to really look at the way that Hillary reacts to the defining moments of her life? Her husband, Bill, accused of sexual misdeeds and infidelity while running for president?
What does Hillary do, go on national TV to insult Tammy Wynette and homemakers in general. She says, ‘I’m not some Tammy Wynette standing by my man at home in the kitchen baking cookies.’ A defining moment. Hillary wants to give jobs to friends, so she smears the longtime staff of the Travel Office and has them fired. Whenever she is questioned forcefully about anything, another defining moment, she can’t remember. Her mind is Jell-O. Her husband lies to the country, to his cabinet, to a grand jury. Hillary blames the vast right-wing conspiracy! A defining moment: Government controlled health care goes down in flames; Hillary disappears. Remember, she disappeared? She started acting very first lady-ish, when it didn’t work, and the last line in this French news agency piece, quote: ”How many people have we had come in from outside promising change and it not working out? — just look at Jimmy Carter,’ he said refering [sic] to the 1970s Democratic president chided by history.’ Mrs. Clinton claims to be from the outside yet at the same time on the inside, and yet coming in promising change, while harking back to her years of experience in the nineties. There are a lot of sops out there, a lot of people who overlook these kinds of specifics, again because of identity politics, in this case: ‘Democrat, woman, Bill Clinton’s wife.’ What she says, what she stands for, what she intends to do is of no consequence to a lot of people, but it is to me, and it is to you as well as what all these Democrats would do is to all of us.
RUSH: Setting the stage for Mrs. Clinton losing Iowa is this headline in The Politico.com: ”Should Hillary Clinton Have Skipped Iowa?’ If she loses the caucus here Thursday, will her campaign wish it had listened to the advice it got last May to take a hike on the Hawkeye state?’ It won’t be that. What the headline will be is: ‘Is Iowa really that important anymore?’ Or, ‘Does Iowa really matter anymore?’ That’s what the headline will be. Novak’s predicting her to come in third, Barack Obama number one, and the Breck Girl number two. (interruption) What’s the press for Obama going to be like if he wins? Well, it’s interesting. There’s a couple stories about Obama that I’ve got here in the Hillary Stack, and one of the stories in the Washington Post says it’s independent voters that may give him the edge in Iowa. If that’s true, it means you’re going to have a lot of people that usually don’t participate in the cauci, participating in the cauci for the first time. Another story in another stack, this is from the New York Times, ‘Obama pulling away from Hillary, tied among women, and Hillary hurting with the male vote.’ No surprise there. Then there’s this paragraph: ‘Mrs. Clinton bests her two rivals only among those with no more than a high school diploma, and those who identify themselves as Democrats.’
So she’s exceeding with the stupid vote, she is losing the male vote, and, remember, they said all along that she had the educated women, whatever that means, but she’s hurting with men, no surprise there. If Obama wins, there will be some exalting, there will be some happiness. Well, I don’t know if it’s all over for her. But here’s the thing: Inevitable candidates don’t lose. If inevitable candidates lose, then they’re not inevitable. But it depends on whether the Drive-Bys choose to write that story as to whether or not it damages her tremendously. Have to wait and see. Can’t be good. They’re going to spin it. In fact, they’re already spinning it. In fact, if she comes in third to Edwards, that would be good. If Edwards is second, that would be fine, if Obama wins — they’re spinning this any number of ways to explain how a loss is actually a good thing. If it’s neck and neck, as it is now going into all these polls, then they’ll say, ‘Well, you know, there really isn’t a winner here. We have to go on to the next state.’ But look, a lot of us get interested here whether or not Mrs. Clinton’s fortunes are going to be damaged. You gotta understand here, when you get to the Drive-Bys and the Democrat political elite, the power politics, the people that determine delegates at the convention, it’s Mrs. Clinton. That’s who they want, that’s who they’re going to try to make it be. All of this is just some games here. She’s gotta struggle, but make no mistake that one loss will send all of her supporters running for the tall grass to support somebody else.