Networksthe Videos

During the December 18 edition of his nationally syndicated talk show, conservative radio host Mark Levin said, "I see on the home page of our friend Drudge -- the Drudge Report -- Developing, National Enquirer: John Edwards love child scandal. They actually have a side view of the woman on the Drudge Report." After asserting that "[s]he definitely looks pregnant," Levin added, "Now, I don t know if this is true or not." As Media Matters for America documented, Slate.com blogger Mickey Kaus and Internet gossip Matt Drudge touted a December 19 National Enquirer article that reports former Edwards campaign worker Rielle Hunter is six months pregnant and that according to the Enquirer, "she s told a close confidante that Edwards is the father of her baby!" As Media Matters further documented, neither Drudge nor Kaus has noted that the Enquirer story to which they link states, "[Edwards confidante Andrew] Young -- a 41-year-old married man with young children -- now claims HE is the father of Rielle s baby!" The article also states, " Andrew Young is the father of Ms. Hunter s unborn child, declared his Washington, D.C.-based attorney." During the segment, Levin speculated about whether the story was "another Hillary Rotten [sic] Clinton Plant" and asked, "Who else would leak this to the National Enquirer, whether it be true of false. It would be the Clintonoids with their hemorrhoids, because this is the kind of game they play." From the December 18 edition of ABC Radio Networks The Mark Levin Show: LEVIN: I see on the home page of our friend Drudge -- the Drudge Report -- "Developing, National Enquirer: John Edwards love child scandal." They actually have a side view of the woman on the Drudge Report. She definitely looks pregnant. Now, I don t know if this is true or not. For all I know, this is another Hillary Rotten Clinton plant. I mean, they are trying to dig up dirt on everybody, aren t they? Who else would leak this to the National Enquirer, whether it be true or false? It would be the Clintonoids with their hemorrhoids, because this is the kind of game they play. The Republicans are too busy battling with each other. They re not focused on slip-and-fall lawyer John Edwards. In fact, they could care less about John Edwards, because he won t be the nominee. Certainly unlikely. Hillary is desperate to win in Iowa, if not the first spot, the second spot. If she comes in third, that s a big-time loser. And that s what some people in Iowa are predicting -- not me, I have no idea. Anyway, the fact of the matter is -- you know, I wonder if any reporter will ask Hillary Rotten, her thighness, if her campaign s behind this, too. "Mark, how can you -- " Listen, folks, to dig up kindergarten records on Barack Obama and to have drug questions planted, you know, why wouldn t they plant something like this, whether it be true or false? I don t know. Time will tell. Drudge has up there that it s developing. The baby -- I mean the story.

During the October 15 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed to have "once" participated in the kind of "destructive reporting and behavior" that, according to him, reporters "dish out." Limbaugh said his target was a reporter, whose name he said he would not "mention," who was writing "a cover story on me coming out of one of the big news magazines, and it was going to totally mischaracterize me and what I do and how I do it." Limbaugh continued: "[W]e found out who was writing it and made a couple phone calls to the person writing it. And we said, You know what? We re going to find out where your kids go to school. We re going to find out who you knocked up in high school. We re going to find out what drugs you used. We re going to find out where you go to drink and do -- we re gonna find out how you paid for your house. We re going to do -- and we re going to do exact -- and we re going to say that, you know what? You are no different than Al Goldstein. You both masturbate. " Limbaugh then claimed: "And the guy started screaming on the phone, just went -- You can t do that. We said, Watch us. And it changed the tone of the story by about 60 percent, I would say, from what it was going to be. But nobody does that to these people. Nobody does it to them. And that would be so much fun." Limbaugh made this claim while discussing the founding of ProPublica, which "will produce investigative journalism in the public interest," according to its website: ProPublica is an independent, non-profit newsroom that will produce investigative journalism in the public interest. Our work will focus exclusively on truly important stories, stories with "moral force." We will do this by producing journalism that shines a light on exploitation of the weak by the strong and on the failures of those with power to vindicate the trust placed in them. During his discussion, Limbaugh read from a post about ProPublica on the conservative website American Thinker, which read in part: "Efforts are being made to wrap this propaganda venture in the cloak of pure public interests." Limbaugh later commented: LIMBAUGH: I ll tell you, folks, the way to deal with this -- I have always said it. I don t know anybody who s doing it. Maybe I should found ProDestroya and get a bunch of people willing to do investigative journalism on these investigative journalists. You know, AntiPublica. They get to sit there -- who are these people that get to act as though they are sin-free, that they are as clean and pure as the wind-driven snow, that they ve got no skeletons in their closet? They can go out and dig up dirt on -- and everybody s got dirt. They can go out and dig whatever up and then they can slant it and taint it, smear it and lie about it, do whatever they want, and nobody examines who these people are. And if you try, they get mad. "Well, we re journalists, we re immune. You can t treat us the way we treat other people." From the October 15 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks The Rush Limbaugh Show: LIMBAUGH: Here s who it is that s funding this ProPublica bunch. "It is Herb and Marion Sandler, legendary capitalist, multibillionaire, builders of a financial empire, philanthropic allies of Peter Lewis and George Soros. They re ponying up $10 million a year for a charitable venture to supply investigative reporting at no cost to newspapers, which are laying off editorial employees and others as their bidness [sic] model becomes obsolete. Efforts are being made to wrap this propaganda venture in the cloak of pure public interests." And ProPublica, does that -- you know, that s a Latin name. Does it not sound like something a bunch of socialists would come up with? ProPublica. "The board comprises a distinguished multi-ethnic panel that even includes a white, male former congressman, Jim Leach [R] of Iowa. Former Wall Street Journal editor Paul Steiger is in charge for the time being. No doubt there will be window-dressing stories going after subjects who could be described as liberal in some sense," just to show that they re, you know, balanced and so forth, but that ll be just at the outset here. Thomas Lifson at the American Thinker says, "Given the background of the holders of the purse strings, there s reason to suspect that the venture will be used to go after opponents of the left. Even Jane Mayer of The New Yorker described them and their circle as hard-core partisans. The Sandlers are famous, celebrated, notorious for their policy of not spending a penny without getting their money s worth and more. They re going to hire up to 24 journalists and pay salary and benefits comparable to the biggest newspapers," which, in essence, you know what this is -- a safety net for some of those journalists who have been canned or who have been let go. So the same journalists who weren t doing their jobs in the first place are now going to get hired to not do their jobs as well as they had been. The whole thing is a ruse, and it s a tax dodge. The whole thing is a tax -- and it s giving away its work. It s a tax dodge for these donors. So, "No longer tethered to the responsibility of earning their way in the marketplace, this talent pool of investigative journalists can be turned loose on potentially anyone. If you look hard enough, you can find all sorts of difficult-to-explain matters that, at a minimum, can tie up and distract even the most innocent paragon of virtue. For real people born as sinners, there s always something that investigative journalists can find." I ll tell you, folks, the way to deal with this -- I have always said it. I don t know anybody who s doing it. Maybe I should found ProDestroya and get a bunch of people willing to do investigative journalism on these investigative journalists. You know, AntiPublica. They get to sit there -- who are these people that get to act as though they are sin-free, that they are as clean and pure as the wind-driven snow, that they ve got no skeletons in their closet? They can go out and dig up dirt on -- and everybody s got dirt. They can go out and dig whatever up and then they can slant it and taint it, smear it and lie about it, do whatever they want, and nobody examines who these people are. And if you try, they get mad. "Well, we re journalists, we re immune. You can t treat us the way we treat other people." I ve had journalists tell me this. "Well, we re journalists." Why are you immune? Why are you immune to the same kind of destructive reporting and behavior that you dish out? You know, we have practiced -- I ve practiced it once. I am not going to tell you the story because I m don t want to give it away, and I would have to mention names, and I m not going to mention names. But there was a cover story on me coming out of one of the big news magazines, and it was going to totally mischaracterize me and what I do and how I do it. And we found out who was writing it and made a couple phone calls to the person writing it. And we said, "You know what? We re going to find out where your kids go to school. We re going to find out who you knocked up in high school. We re going to find out what drugs you used. We re going to find out where you go to drink and do -- we re gonna find out how you paid for your house. We re going to do -- and we re going to do exact -- and we re going to say that, you know what? You are no different than Al Goldstein. You both masturbate. You re no different than Al Goldstein, and you re both journalists, and so forth." And the guy started screaming on the phone, just went -- "You can t do that." We said, "Watch us." And it changed the tone of the story by about 60 percent, I would say, from what it was going to be. But nobody does that to these people. Nobody does it to them. And that would be so much fun. But I d need to be wearing body armor every day. Oh, no question, these people are playing for keeps.

On the October 5 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh "suggest[ed]" -- without providing evidence -- that VoteVets.org, an organization of military veterans who support U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, "doesn t represent the vast majority of veterans out there." VoteVets recently produced television and radio ads criticizing Limbaugh for comments he made on September 26 characterizing service members who support U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers." On the October 5 broadcast, discussing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) s October 1 floor statement that Limbaugh s comment was "beyond the pale of decency," Limbaugh asserted that Reid "didn t mention VoteVets.org. They never hold press conferences with them." Limbaugh continued: "I never see Dingy Harry with members of VoteVets.org standing with him on the podium. Why is that? ... The reason Dingy Harry and the rest of the Democrats do not show publicly with members of VoteVets.org is because they don t know -- they don t want you to know -- the intricate degree of coordination between these anti-war groups and elected Democrats in the House and the Senate. And that s why they never cite them." In fact, Reid has appeared with VoteVets representatives at press conferences, and Democrats have issued press releases citing VoteVets. For instance, on July 11, Reid and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) held a press conference regarding Sen. Jim Webb s (D-VA) proposed amendment on troop deployments, featuring representatives from VoteVets and other organizations. From the press release: The Senators spoke alongside representatives from Veterans for America, the National Military Families Association and VoteVets.org about Senator Jim Webb s amendment to begin the critical and long overdue process of rebuilding our badly overburdened military. The amendment will give our troops the time to properly train, prepare for and recover from battle, and ensures we do not leave our cities and towns first responders shorthanded. Additionally, on February 7, Reid issued a press release that stated: "With Republicans in the Senate blocking a debate on President Bush s plan to escalate the war, Senate Democrats today joined veterans of the war in Iraq to demand the Senate be allowed to vote up or down on the single most important issue facing America today. Democratic Conference Secretary Patty Murray, Senator John Kerry, Senator Jack Reed, and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, along with Jon Soltz and Andrew Horne of VoteVets.org, called on Senate Republicans to put the safety of America s troops ahead of providing political cover for the White House." The release went on to quote Soltz and VoteVets senior adviser Andrew Horne: "On Monday, the minority of the United States Senate came out forcefully for an escalation of the war in Iraq, clearly ignoring the will of the American people and those of us who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Jon Soltz, Co-Founder and Chairman of VoteVets.org. "Many of those Senators in recent weeks said they were against escalation. Well, talk is cheap, and you don t support our troops with lip service. In the debate on the Iraq war and an escalation, there are only two sides - with the troops or with the President. You cannot have it both ways. Those Senators who have voted against the troops are now on official warning - vote in line with the will of the troops and the will of the people, or pay the price." Said Andrew Horne, Senior Advisor to VoteVets.org, "Monday s vote to support escalation of the war in Iraq by the minority was a Profile in Cowardice. A lot of Senators have puffed out there [sic] chests and spoken boldly about opposing an escalation of the war in Iraq, but when faced with pressure from their leader, buckled and wilted in fear. We Iraq veterans risked our very lives in service to this country, marching head-up into a field of bullets, IEDs, and rockets. These Senators ran scared because of political pressure from their party. It s clear who the true patriots are in this debate." Further, an April 2 Associated Press article posted on USA Today s website features a photo captioned: "From left to right: Iraq war veteran Jon Soltz, chairman of VoteVets.org; U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Iraq veteran Jonathan Powers meet in Reid s office at the Capitol." The article discussed Reid s reaction to President Bush s then-impending veto of supplemental funding bill that included provisions for a timetable for troop withdrawals from Iraq. Photographs from Getty Images of the March 29 meeting can be found here. According to Getty, "The group discussed the supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan that would set a timetable for withdrawal of troops." More recently, Democratic Sens. Jack Reed (RI), Patty Murray (WA) and Mary Landrieu (LA) announced on September 5 that they had "joined Iraq War veteran Peter Granato, Vice Chairman of Vote Vets ... to discuss the importance of providing funding for our veterans." According to their press release, the group expressed its support for "legislation that would provide $109.2 billion in funding for military construction and the Veterans Administration, which is approximately $4 billion more than the president requested." From the October 5 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks The Rush Limbaugh Show: LIMBAUGH: All right, I want to go to the audio sound bites. Last night, on the Rusty Humphries Show, which airs 9 to midnight Eastern time, he had as his guest the vice chair of VoteVet.org [sic], which is a group running these ads and getting this "phony soldiers" smear ginned up. And I ve got two bites here. Humphries -- the guy s name is Brandon Friedman. And Rusty Humphries says, "Why? Why are you doing this, honestly? What is your reasoning behind this?" [begin audio clip] FRIEDMAN: The problem I have with Rush Limbaugh is that he enables policymakers who have gotten our country into a lot of trouble. We re in a lot of trouble. I mean, we ve got some serious problems with Islamic extremism globally and we can t address those problems correctly -- HUMPHRIES: Why? FRIEDMAN: --because we re bogged down in another country s religious civil war. HUMPHRIES: OK, so it s not what Rush said, it s who Rush supports. And because he helped get them elected, he needs to be taken down. Is that -- FRIEDMAN: No, it s a pattern of what he does. I mean, he -- this guy has a voice, and he affects people. HUMPHRIES: Right. [end audio clip] LIMBAUGH: There you have it. I mean, the guy -- ladies and gentlemen, leading spokesman for VoteVets.org admitting publicly that the reason the liberal hit squad s attacking me is because they don t agree with my position on the war and that I m influential. Now, let me ask you a question: Is that what we should be doing in America? I mean, knowingly smearing somebody because you disagree with his policy views, lying about what he said, trying to destroy his character. Because that s what this gentleman has just admitted doing. Anyone who practices these kinds of tactics ought to be ashamed of themselves. Whether they re civilians or used to wear the uniform or still wear the uniform, lying about somebody s statements to advance your own policy objectives is not honorable. And it ll -- it won t work because there s no substance behind it. Let me suggest that the vast majority of men and women in uniform today, as well as those who have served before, do not want us to lose. They don t want this mission to fail. And they don t sign on to the anti-war movement led by the likes of Harry Reid. Let me further suggest this: VoteVets.org doesn t represent the vast majority of veterans out there. I think the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, with literally millions and millions of members, are far more representative of the vets in this country than VoteVets.org. And yet they are portrayed, much as other fringe liberal groups, as huge, powerful, and influential, and they re not. And this audio clip indicates that they are feeling powerless to stop people like me and my influence, and so I have to be taken out with a smear. Now, one thing I also want to point out -- you know, when Harry Reid went to the floor of the Senate this past Monday to denounce me, he didn t cite to this group, did he? He didn t mention VoteVets.org. They never hold press conferences with them, I mean, I never see Dingy Harry with members of VoteVets.org standing with him on the podium. Why is that? Could it be because they don t share the policy positions of Reid and his ilk? They want our combat forces to have the equipment and additional support they need to win the war, and this group doesn t really even like Reid. Maybe it is that Reid s embarrassed to be with these guys. You don t think that s what it is? It s -- well, meets with them secretly. Well, that s probably right, that s probably right. The reason Dingy Harry and the rest of the Democrats do not show publicly with members of VoteVets.org is because they don t know -- they don t want you to know -- the intricate degree of coordination between these anti-war groups and elected Democrats in the House and the Senate. And that s why they never cite them. That s why Dingy Harry didn t cite them. He made it his own words. He said, "Limbaugh said this." He had no idea what I said. He didn t care what I said. The VoteVet.orgs [sic] and the Media Matters types fed him the data. It worked. This is and was a coordinated smear, and they don t want the coordination noticed. Orchestrated from Day One here, folks, as I have explained repeatedly. And not thanks to VoteVets.org and one of its spokesmen, this fact has been underscored. You know, the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, these are organizations with literally millions and millions of members. And I side with them. I side with the American Legion. I don t share the views of VoteVets.org, which works closely with Harry Reid and a number of other elected Democrats. And because I share the same position as most of our soldiers -- and in this Fox poll -- because I share the position of most of the American people, who do not want us to lose. I support the troops in this war, as anybody with a brain knows. And I m attacked over my support for the troops and the war and by claims I oppose the troops.

During the October 5 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh broadcast what he called "a spoof ad from DNC Pharma. ... A new ad for a drug that they have recently introduced to the market: Tryphorgetin." The "spoof ad" declared: "If you are a supporter of Hillary Clinton and you have a nagging fear that her shameful past will come back to ruin her election chances, this message of hope is for you." In a mock testimonial, a woman asserted that after taking "Tryphorgetin," "I even forgot that Hillary stood by her husband even when she learned that he d raped Juanita Broaddrick. Thank you, Tryphorgetin. Thank you, DNC Pharmaceuticals." Limbaugh introduced the "spoof ad" by stating: "This is being emailed all over the place. I m -- you may have heard it, because this is -- it s funny." From the October 5 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks The Rush Limbaugh Show: LIMBAUGH: One more bite here before we go to the break and then get back to calls. You ve got to hear this. This is being emailed all over the place. I m -- you may have heard it because this is -- it s funny. It is -- it s a new ad -- it s a spoof ad from DNC Pharma. It s a Bruce Chapman production, DNC Pharmaceuticals. A new ad for a drug that they have recently introduced to the market: Tryphorgetin. [begin audio clip] MAN: I had this terrible sense of anxiety, this unshakable sense of doom, but that was before I tried Tryphorgetin. ANNOUNCER: If you re a supporter of Hillary Clinton and you have a nagging fear that her shameful past will come back to ruin her election chances, this message of hope is for you. DNC Pharmaceuticals presents Tryphorgetin: more than just a drug, a way of coping. WOMAN: Hillary was in charge of destroying the reputations of the women Bill sexually harassed. That used to bother me. Then I tried Tryphorgetin. Now I don t even remember what a bimbo eruption is. MAN: When I tried Tryphorgetin, I completely forgot about the missing files from Vince Foster s office, Chinagate, the Madison Guaranty swindle, money for pardons. It s all just gone. Thanks to Tryphorgetin, I believe there really is a vast right-wing conspiracy that makes Bill jump into the sack with all those girls. WOMAN: Here s the best part: I even forgot that Hillary stood by her husband even when she learned that he d raped Juanita Broaddrick. Thank you, Tryphorgetin. Thank you, DNC Pharmaceuticals. I definitely recommend Tryphorgetin to all my fellow Democrats. It s made the difference between -- between -- what was I saying? ANNOUNCER: Side effects are generally mild and include nausea, dizziness, and loss of self-esteem. In more severe cases, side effects include delusions of victory, irrational exuberance, and the complete suspension of rational judgment. MAN: Tryphorgetin. Whatever it takes to win.

Discussing a recent interview with a reporter in Iowa in which Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) said that he had stopped wearing an American flag pin on his lapel during the lead-up to the Iraq war, Fox News host Sean Hannity said on the October 4 broadcast of his radio show: "[W]hy do we wear pins? Because our country was under attack." He continued: "And to politicize once again the war to this extent. Well, who cares about the war? Are you proud of your country? Do you believe in America? Do you believe that America has been, continues to be the greatest force for good in this world?" Hannity later stated: "I think it s, you know, the greatest gift God gave us and continues to be a force for good." Yet while criticizing Obama for not wearing a flag pin, Hannity himself has not worn an American flag lapel pin on a number of recent occasions. Hannity s quote, "[W]hy do we wear pins? Because our country was under attack," was included in a number of reports on Obama s decision not to wear a flag pin -- including in the October 4 edition of ABC s World News with Charles Gibson and the October 5 edition of ABC s Good Morning America. Below are examples of Hannity not wearing an American flag lapel pin on Fox News Hannity Hannity s America: From the October 4 edition of ABC Radio Networks The Sean Hannity Show: HANNITY: Anyway, so get this story [since updated to include Hannity s comments], reported by ABC News: A reporter for the ABC affiliate in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, noticed that something was missing from Barack Obama s lapel. He says: "You don t have the American flag pin on it. Is that a fashion statement?" the reporter asked at the end of a brief interview with Obama. "Those have, you know, basically been on politicians since September 12, 2001." The standard political reply to that question might well have been, "My patriotism speaks for itself." But Obama didn t say that. The piece goes on: Instead, the senator answered the question at length, explaining that he no longer wears such a pin at least in part because of the Iraq war. He said, quote, "You know, the truth is, is that right after 9-11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9-11, particularly because as we were talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won t wear that pin on my chest. "Instead," he said, "I m going to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism." The Obama campaign declined to expand on the statement. His comments speak for itself. Now, I ve got to tell you -- I mean, why do we wear pins? Because our country was under attack. And to politicize once again the war to this extent. Well, who cares about the war? Are you proud of your country? Do you believe in America? Do you believe that America has been, continues to be the greatest force for good in this world? I think the answer, if you ask that question of any, you know, liberal today, I think they doubt that America is a force for good in the world, that America has been, continues to be a force for good in the world. And I think it s, you know, the greatest gift God gave us and continues to be a force for good.

On the October 4 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh asserted that he "didn t call" wounded Iraq veteran Brian McGough "a suicide bomber" on his October 2 show and said he was "grateful" for McGough s service. McGough appeared in an ad released by VoteVets denouncing Limbaugh s September 26 characterization of service members who support troop withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers." In the ad, McGough says to Limbaugh, "Until you have the guts to call me a phony soldier to my face, stop telling lies about my service." As Media Matters for America documented, Limbaugh said on October 2: "[T]his is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into." From Limbaugh s October 2 radio show: LIMBAUGH: VoteVets.org has -- they describe themselves as an organization comprised of veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns who oppose current policy in Iraq. They ve put together a TV ad that takes aim at me. This ad s going to run on Fox News, on CNN, it s going to run on WMAL radio in Washington, $60,000 ad buy that s going to run, I think, on our local West Palm Beach station down here. And there s a man identified as Brian McCoff -- McGough -- it s M-C-G-O-U-G-H, I m not sure how he pronounces it, McGo, McGuff -- I haven t watched the ad. He discusses his service in Iraq, the wounds he suffered there, and he says to me in this ad, "Until you have the guts to call me a phony soldier to my face, stop telling lies about my service." You know, this is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into. This man will always be a hero to this country with everyone. Whoever pumped him full of these lies about what I said and embarrassed him with this ad has betrayed him. They re not hurting me, they re betraying this soldier. Now, unless he actually believes what he s saying, in which case it s just so unfortunate and sad when the truth of what I said is right out there to be learned. After several media outlets noted his comments about McGough, writing that Limbaugh compared McGough to a suicide bomber, Limbaugh revisited those remarks on his October 4 show. After replaying his October 2 comments he said: "I called him a hero. The other reference is to where the drive-by media runs in, blows things up, creates all these messes, and then heads on down the road to create another one. I called him a suicide bomber -- you see how this works. I didn t call anybody who legitimately serves a phony soldier. I didn t call this guy a suicide bomber." The Los Angeles Times reported on October 4: Limbaugh responded on air Tuesday, comparing McGough metaphorically to a suicide bomber. He said the ad was "a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into." Similarly, The New York Times reported October 3: The advertisement, to be pushed with a modest $60,000 buy, is scheduled to be broadcast Wednesday on national cable news channels, with a radio version in certain markets during Mr. Limbaugh s show. In it, a wounded veteran chastises Mr. Limbaugh. On Tuesday, Mr. Limbaugh compared the veteran to a suicide bomber, saying the advocacy group had strapped "lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into," according to a transcript distributed by Media Matters. ABCNews.com reported October 3: Limbaugh publicly denounced the VoteVets.org ad, likening the Iraq War veteran featured in the ad to a suicide bomber. "This is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into," Limbaugh said Tuesday on his radio program. Limbaugh has said that his "phony soldier" comments were referring only to one soldier recently convicted of lying about his service. The radio talk show host has also attacked Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., a retired Marine colonel and opponent of the Iraq War. "I was not talking about anti-war, active duty troops," Limbaugh insisted. However the liberal media watchdog organization Media Matters disputed Limbaugh s claim that his "phony soldiers" comment was taken out of context, pointing to the transcript as proof that the reference came two minutes before discussion of the discredited man. "After referring to troops who disagree with him about Iraq as phony soldiers, he s gone on to compare one of our Purple Heart veterans from the war in Iraq to a suicide bomber," said Karl Frisch, spokesperson for Media Matters. "It s time for him to stop digging the hole and start being accountable." In an October 3 article, FoxNews.com said: Limbaugh decried the ad by the group that he linked to MoveOn.org, figuratively saying VoteVets is treating McGough like a suicide bomber. "This is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said and then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media and a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into. This man will always be a hero to this country with everyone. Whoever pumped him full of these lies about what I said and embarrassed him with this ad has betrayed him, they aren t hurting me they are betraying this soldier," Limbaugh said. From the October 4 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show: LIMBAUGH: Let s go to the audio sound bites, shall we? Let s -- we have a montage of this morning and last night. We have Joe Scarbourough of MSNBC, John Roberts of CNN, Willie Geist, MSNBC, somebody else on MSNBC, and Norah O Donnell all talking -- you know, this poor guy Brian McGough of VoteVets.org, he s running around saying that I called him a suicide bomber yesterday on this program. And of course, he says it, there s no questioning it, and here s the montage of the drive-bys reacting to it. Sit tight, Dawn -- Dawn s about to explode in there. She came in today, walked in -- "I am never going to watch or listen to Geraldo again after last night, and I am never" -- Alan Colmes -- just, you know, chill, chill. Everything s under control here. It s going our way. Here s the montage: [begin audio clip] JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC: We re going to hear for the next five days how Rush Limbaugh called this guy a suicide bomber. JOHN ROBERTS, CNN: Limbaugh called this guy a suicide bomber. WILLIE GEIST, MSNBC: Metaphor to say he was like a suicide bomber. KEITH OLBERMANN, MSNBC: Comparing that soldier to a suicide bomber. NORAH O DONNELL, MSNBC: Essentially comparing him to a suicide bomber. [end audio clip] LIMBAUGH: All right, anybody care what I actually said about this? Would you like to hear what I actually said? This was Tuesday on the program, and I was talking about the ad that they are running. [begin audio clip] LIMBAUGH: You know, this is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into. This man will always be a hero to this country with everyone. Whoever pumped him full of these lies about what I said and embarrassed him with this ad has betrayed him. They re not hurting me, they re betraying this soldier. Now, unless he actually believes what he s saying, in which case it s just so unfortunate and sad when the truth of what I said is right out there to be learned. [end audio clip] LIMBAUGH: I called him a hero. I called him a hero. The other reference is to where the drive-by media runs in, blows things up, creates all these messes, and then heads on down the road to create another one. I called him a suicide bomber -- you see how this works. I didn t call anybody who legitimately serves a "phony soldier." I didn t call this guy a suicide bomber. That s out there -- I called him a suicide bomber. [laughter] Here s McGough. He was on MSNBC last night talking about the fact that I called him a suicide bomber. McGOUGH [audio clip]: My reaction is disgust, how someone can sit in that chair and say that I am a car bomber, or excuse me, a suicide bomber, is disgusting. I ve seen the aftereffects of a suicide bomb. I ve had friends that were hurt in suicide bombs. It makes me mad down to a place where I can t even think to describe. It s just repugnant. LIMBAUGH: And -- it s not just repugnant. It s very sad. Brian, let me -- let me try this again. Mr. McGough, I admire you for your service. I admire anyone and everyone who volunteers to serve in the United States military in this country, always have. I m grateful to you for your service, and that, Brian, is an unqualified thank you, whether or not you support the war, or the surge, President Bush, or not.

On the October 2 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, responding to criticism of his September 26 comments characterizing service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers," Rush Limbaugh again asserted that he had been referring to multiple military imposters -- including Jesse MacBeth -- rather than service members or former service members with whom he disagrees. Limbaugh asserted: "The next ruse the left is saying: He couldn t have been talking about MacBeth because he used the plural. He said "phony soldiers." He didn t say phony "soldier." " Limbaugh continued: "Again, this is a willful and missing of the context of this program. We have discussed many of these phony soldiers over the course of the past few months. We discuss them constantly. MacBeth was just the latest." Earlier in the program, Limbaugh described MacBeth as "the man I was referring to and others like him as phony soldiers. " But immediately after the controversy erupted over his comments, Limbaugh offered a different explanation, inconsistent with his claim to have been referring to MacBeth "and others like him": As Media Matters for America documented, during the September 28 broadcast of his show, Limbaugh twice claimed that rather than speaking generally of soldiers who support withdrawal from Iraq, he was "talking about one soldier with that phony soldier comment, Jesse MacBeth." Indeed, the transcript (subscription required) of the September 28 broadcast that is posted on Limbaugh s site shows Limbaugh asserting: "I was talking about one soldier with that phony soldier comment, Jesse MacBeth. [emphasis in original]" Further, to support his contention that he had been talking about "one soldier ... Jesse MacBeth," during his September 28 broadcast, Limbaugh purported to air the "entire" segment in question from the September 26 broadcast of his show. In fact, as Media Matters noted, the clip he then aired had been edited. Excised from the clip was a full 1 minute and 35 seconds of the 1 minute and 50 second discussion that occurred between Limbaugh s original "phony soldiers" comment and his reference to MacBeth. Also, the transcript of the first segment of the first hour of his September 28 broadcast posted on Limbaugh s website, which Limbaugh described as being the "anatomy of a smear," does not provide any notation or ellipsis to indicate that there is, in fact, a break in the transcript of the September 26 clip. Later in the September 28 broadcast, in response to a caller s question, "But you did say soldiers in plural, though, didn t you?" Limbaugh asserted: "Yes, because there have been a number of these people, but they were not active duty -- I was not talking about anti-war, active duty troops. I was talking about people who ve been exposed as frauds who never served in Iraq but claimed to have seen all these atrocities, [unintelligible]." As the blog Crooks and Liars noted, during his September 28 broadcast, Limbaugh also expanded the group of "phony soldiers" to include Vietnam veteran Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) and Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, who is currently serving in Iraq. In asserting that he was originally "talking about a genuine phony soldier," Limbaugh went on to state: "And by the way, Jesse MacBeth s not the only one. How about this guy Scott Thomas who was writing fraudulent, phony things in The New Republic about atrocities he saw that never happened? How about Jack Murtha blanketly accepting the notion that Marines at Haditha engaged in wanton murder of innocent children and civilians?" From the October 2 edition of Premiere Radio Networks The Rush Limbaugh Show: LIMBAUGH: Many of you have said, "You ought to sue." I can t, folks. I m a public figure. It s part of the process. Can t. It s not doable. There are other ways of dealing with this. I was shocked when I heard Senator [Tom] Harkin [D-IA] say it, and I ve thought about what he actually said, and I m blown away. He attributes to me referencing seven soldiers in a New York Times story that I had never, ever referenced. I never have done so, until this very moment on this program. Now, there are also some people who are talking about this story. CNN did a story yesterday afternoon accepting the Harry Reid-Media Matters -- founded by Hillary Clinton -- premise. There have been others who have done so, and not one of them has gone into detail about Jesse MacBeth, the man I was referring to and others like him as "phony soldiers." So let me again detail for you Jesse MacBeth, because this is the celebrity the anti-war left props up and loves. Army Ranger, he said, a 23-year-old corporal. He said he won a Purple Heart. He said he was afflicted with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq -- and what made Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth a hero to the left wing was his "courage," in their view, off the battlefield. Without regard to consequences, MacBeth told the world -- and his remarks were printed and reprinted in Arabic all over the Middle East and the Internet. He told the world about abuses he had witnessed in Iraq: American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, and even children, hanging them in mosques. That s one gruesome account translated into Arabic, spread widely across the Internet, MacBeth described the horrors this way: "We would burn the bodies, and we would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque." This is who I was discussing, and everybody in the drive-by media reporting on this knows this is who I was discussing. ABC reported on this man two days before I began this very commentary a week ago yesterday, a week ago Monday, ABC World News Tonight did the story. And still the drive-by media who are talking about this do not detail for anybody who Jesse MacBeth is. Well, here s the grand finale: Jesse MacBeth -- a poster boy of the anti-war left, heralded as a hero -- had his day in court. He was sentenced to five months in jail, three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim. His Army s discharge record as well. Yes, MacBeth was in the Army -- for 44 days. He washed out of boot camp. He is not an Army Ranger. He is not a corporal. He never won the Purple Heart. He was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen, but don t look for any retractions from the left. Don t look for any TV ads about this guy from the left, not from the anti-war left, the anti-military drive-by media, or the Arabic websites that spread his lies about the troops, because fiction -- fiction, ladies and gentlemen, fiction is what serves the purpose of the anti-war left, from Tom Harkin to Harry Reid, to these groups that prop up phony soldiers, like Jesse MacBeth, groups like The New Republic, which run phony accounts from soldiers in Iraq lying about what they ve seen. These are the heroes to the anti-war left. Fiction is what serves their purpose. The truth is just too inconvenient. The next ruse the left is saying: "He couldn t have been talking about MacBeth because he used the plural. He said phony soldiers. He didn t say phony soldier. " Again, this is a willful and missing of the context of this program. We have discussed many of these phony soldiers over the course of the past few months. We discuss them constantly. MacBeth was just the latest. I have a press release here from the United States attorney s office, the Western District, State of Washington, September 21st of this year. Headline: "Northwest Crackdown on Fake Veterans in Operation Stolen Valor -- Phony vets scam more than 1.4 million and damage image of honorable veterans."

On the October 2 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh denounced a recent ad by VoteVets.org that featured Iraq war veteran Brian McGough, calling the ad "a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into." Limbaugh went on to say that "[w]hoever pumped [McGough] full of these lies about what I said ... has betrayed him." Limbaugh denounced the ad despite admitting "I haven t watched the ad." In the ad, which was created in response to Limbaugh s recent characterization of U.S. service members who oppose the war in Iraq as "phony soldiers," McGough says to Limbaugh, "Until you have the guts to call me a phony soldier to my face, stop telling lies about my service." From the October 2 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks The Rush Limbaugh Show: LIMBAUGH: VoteVets.org has -- they describe themselves as an organization comprised of veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns who oppose current policy in Iraq. They ve put together a TV ad that takes aim at me. This ad s going to run on Fox News, on CNN, it s going to run on WMAL radio in Washington, $60,000 ad buy that s going to run, I think, on our local West Palm Beach station down here. And there s a man identified as Brian McCoff -- McGough -- it s M-C-G-O-U-G-H, I m not sure how he pronounces it, McGo, McGuff -- I haven t watched the ad. He discusses his service in Iraq, the wounds he suffered there, and he says to me in this ad, "Until you have the guts to call me a phony soldier to my face, stop telling lies about my service." You know, this is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into. This man will always be a hero to this country with everyone. Whoever pumped him full of these lies about what I said and embarrassed him with this ad has betrayed him. They re not hurting me, they re betraying this soldier. Now, unless he actually believes what he s saying, in which case it s just so unfortunate and sad when the truth of what I said is right out there to be learned.

During the first hour of the October 1 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, in response to a Media Matters for America item documenting his recent description of service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers," Rush Limbaugh said: "I want to apologize to all of the members of the United States military, both in uniform and out, active duty and retired, for Media Matters for America." Limbaugh continued: "They will not apologize to you, and they will not apologize to me. I want to apologize to you on behalf of them." Limbaugh later asserted: "The bottom line to all this is that, last week, with this smear and this phony accusation regarding something I had not said about active duty military personnel, or even those who opposed the war, was that, once again, the integrity of the U.S. military was brought into question when the integrity of the sourcing group, Media Matters for America, should have been brought into question." But Limbaugh has misrepresented his "phony soldiers" comments; indeed, listeners to Armed Forces Network (AFN), which broadcasts only the first hour of The Rush Limbaugh Show, heard only a spliced version of Limbaugh s remarks in which he edited out 1 minute and 35 seconds of discussion, while falsely claiming that he was providing the "entire transcript." Limbaugh s original reference to "phony soldiers" occurred during the second hour of the September 26 edition of his show, and therefore was not heard by AFN listeners. During the first hour of the September 28 broadcast of his show, however, Limbaugh -- reacting to strong criticism over his comments -- played an edited version of the discussion, which he presented as complete. That was the first time his AFN audience would have heard the comments on his radio show. During that broadcast, Limbaugh claimed that on September 26, he had not been talking "about the anti-war movement generally," but rather "about one soldier ... Jesse MacBeth." To support this claim, Limbaugh purported to air the "entire" segment in question from the September 26 broadcast. But as Media Matters noted, the clip he aired omitted a full 1 minute and 35 seconds of the 1 minute and 50 second discussion that occurred between Limbaugh s original "phony soldiers" comment and his reference to MacBeth. Moreover, during the first hour of his September 28 broadcast, Limbaugh actually misrepresented his own comments in an effort to support his assertion that Media Matters had distorted his remarks. Limbaugh twice claimed that rather than speaking generally of soldiers who support withdrawal from Iraq, he was "talking about one soldier with that phony soldier comment, Jesse MacBeth." But as the transcript makes clear, Limbaugh originally referred to "phony soldiers," plural. Responding to a caller s statement that supporters of withdrawal "like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media," Limbaugh responded, "The phony soldiers" [emphasis added]. In addition, Limbaugh referred to Media Matters as a "Hillary Clinton front group." In fact, as previously noted in response to similar claims from Limbaugh, Media Matters is not affiliated with any political party or candidate. From the October 1 edition of Premiere Radio Networks The Rush Limbaugh Show: LIMBAUGH: I want to apologize to all of the members of the United States military, both in uniform and out, active duty and retired, for Media Matters for America. They will not apologize to you, and they will not apologize to me. I want to apologize to you on behalf of them. As all of you military personnel know, I -- since the beginning of time and since the beginning of this program, certainly 19 years ago -- have been one of the most ardent, loyal, in-awe supporters of any and all who wear the uniform -- including those who disagree with the mission. I found a couple of them when I was in Afghanistan on a troop visit. I went over to five base visits in Afghanistan, and did Q d been asking for a long time. This is the first time I ve been granted permission. But I wanted to go on this trip because at the time this was all happening, Afghanistan had sort of cooled off and there wasn t much news coming out of there, but Iraq was roiling, and the news out of Iraq was -- well, you know what it was. It was bad: "We can t win"; "We re losing"; "Too many deaths" -- and all this sort of thing. And I wanted to go tell them, personally, as an American, how small and -- of a minority those thoughts about them were -- that there was love and respect and adoration for all who wear the uniform in this country, active duty or not, but I was specifically referring to people in combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan. And I stood up before them, and I said -- even to the ones who let it be known that they disagreed with me politically, not on the war, but politically -- I mean, they all wanted victory, and they all were doing their duty, and they all said they were there to protect their country. This is what they chose to do after 9-11 happened. And I stood before them and I said -- and I -- there are a lot of people, by the way, who were thanking me and all of that. It ran the gamut -- "I don t care who you are. I stand before you, and I feel, you know, six inches tall. Compared to what you re doing, I m just, you know, uttering words here. I just wanted to come convey support because you re not getting a whole lot of it in the mainstream media in our country, and the attitudes toward you of the American people are being misrepresented to you in droves." You re -- I said, "When you get back and walk into most airports in this country, you are going to be given standing ovations and applause." Of course, that -- the story coming out of Oakland -- and it s -- I guess there s some controversy about it, but apparently, some Marines getting home, landing at Oakland, were spit on by people in the Oakland airport. Now, I haven t been able to confirm it, but it s on a couple blogs and apparently there s some witnesses that say that they did see it. Bottom line to all this -- and I ve -- you know, I ve been -- I ve described to you that the visit I took to Washington to Walter Reed Army Hospital and the amputee rehabilitation unit. So many of these men and their wives were thanking me for what I m doing -- that makes me feel six inches tall as well. In fact, Justice [Clarence] Thomas and I discussed this in the interview coming up you will hear. I said, "I m just uttering words. You guys, look at you." No, no, no. They were upbeat and happy. One guy had lost both arms; couldn t wait to get married six months down the road. He said, "Look, we all have our roles, man, and you keep doing what you re doing." The bottom line to all this is is that, last week, with this smear and this phony accusation regarding something I had not said about active duty military personnel, or even those who opposed the war, was that, once again, the integrity of the U.S. military was brought into question when the integrity of the sourcing group, Media Matters for America, should have been brought into question. A Hillary Clinton front group, they will continue to be used as an accredited source by the drive-by media, despite the fact that they have now been demonstrated to make things up, take things out of context, and embarrass those who report what they say. They will continue to be a source, because this is the 08 playbook that we saw break down last week -- and the Democrats may still introduce their resolution in the House castigating me. I don t know. The House doesn t go into session til two o clock. We ll have to wait and see. Don t know if they will do that or not. If they do, it s just an effort to try to portray themselves as pro-military cause they know they have to because they know the impression they have accurately created is that they re not pro-military, from [Rep.] Jack Murtha [D-PA] to [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] claiming defeat, [Sen.] John Kerry s [D-MA] lifetime of criticism of the soldiers. So they re going to try to deflect the criticism away from their pet organization, MoveOn.org, whose "Betray Us" ad backfired totally on them. It was a Wellstone moment for them, as will this be. But since you will never get an apology from Jack Murtha for mischaracterizing you as murderers; since you ll never get an apology from John Kerry; since you won t get an apology from Media Matters for America or anybody who works there -- to all of you in the U.S. Military -- I want to apologize to you for them for the, again, firestorm over something that did not happen regarding your valor and your commitment to freedom and democracy last week on this program. I really regret that it happened, and I apologize to you on their behalf since they won t. [commercial break] LIMBAUGH: OK, we got a little wager going here. How long will it take Media Matters for America to report that I, Rush Limbaugh, apologized to the troops, period -- which is not what I did. I apologized to troops on behalf of Media Matters for America, because they will not. Let s see how they distort this. They are totally capable of it. Clarence Thomas is coming next.

On the September 28 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Rush Limbaugh defended his September 26 statement in which he characterized service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers," asserting that he had been taken out of context and that he was referring to just one "phony soldier," Jesse MacBeth, who pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for falsely claiming to be an injured Iraq war veteran. However, as the blog Crooks and Liars noted, in the same broadcast, Limbaugh expanded the group of "phony soldiers" to include Vietnam veteran Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) and Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, who is currently serving in Iraq. In asserting that he was originally "talking about a genuine phony soldier," Limbaugh went on to state: "And by the way, Jesse MacBeth s not the only one. How about this guy Scott Thomas who was writing fraudulent, phony things in The New Republic about atrocities he saw that never happened? How about Jack Murtha blanketly accepting the notion that Marines at Haditha engaged in wanton murder of innocent children and civilians?" According to Murtha s biography on his congressional website, Murtha joined the Marines in 1952 and volunteered for service in Vietnam, where he was awarded the Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts. From the September 28 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks The Rush Limbaugh Show: LIMBAUGH: But this is how this stuff starts. This is an illustration -- this is the way the Democrat playbook in 08 -- and actually, it s been under way for a while. And it s -- the illustration here folks is just how partisan the supposed objective media people are. You know, I ve got a website, and I ve got a radio show, and I ve got a phone. And I have people who answer the phone. And if they read something like this -- I ve been on the air 19 years, 19 and a half -- well, a little bit over 19. Just the blanket acceptance of this -- knowing full well that Media Matters takes things out of context all the time -- the blanket acceptance of this and then running with it full speed is an illustration of what I have been drumming into people s heads for years. The drive-by media is as partisan as any organization out there. They hide under this notion that they are objective, but they ve got an agenda, they have their narratives, they have their templates. When anything fits the narrative, whether it s true or not, i.e. the Duke rape case, you go with it. You run with it. You make the mess. This is why they re called the drive-by media. You make the mess. They drive in, they shoot things up, create all kinds of mess, get in the convertible, head back down the road, and it s left to people like me to clean up the mess that they make. And they make messes every day, over and over and over again. So, the reason for spending this time on this is to illustrate that that is how this happens. This organization is a front group for Mrs. Clinton, as is so many other organizations out there that engage in these kinds of smears The -- one more sound bite here from the floor of the House. This is Frank Pallone, a Democrat from New Jersey. Here s a portion of what he said. PALLONE [audio clip]: Yesterday, House Republicans offered a motion to recommit condemning MoveOn.org for its advertisement stating that Gen. [David] Petraeus had betrayed us. I m wondering if they ll show similar outrage over statements made yesterday by conservative radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh. Yesterday, Limbaugh called service members who support a withdrawal from Iraq "phony soldiers." Is Limbaugh serious? I wonder if Republicans who showed so much outrage towards MoveOn yesterday will hold Rush Limbaugh to the same standard. And I wouldn t hold your breath. LIMBAUGH: You shouldn t hold your breath because there s no standard to hold me to, in the sense that you re -- I never said what you think I said, Congressman Pallone, Congresswoman [Jan] Schakowsky [D-IL], Sen. [John] Kerry [D-MA], or any of the rest of you in the drive-by media. I was talking about a genuine phony soldier. And by the way, Jesse MacBeth s not the only one. How about this guy Scott Thomas who was writing fraudulent, phony things in The New Republic about atrocities he saw that never happened? How about Jack Murtha blanketly accepting the notion that Marines at Haditha engaged in wanton murder of innocent children and civilians? If anybody owes anybody an apology, the entire Democrat [sic] Party, from Hillary Clinton on down, owes the U.S. military an apology, they owe me an apology, and they owe the American people an apology.

On the September 28 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, in arguing that he had been taken out of context by Media Matters for America, Rush Limbaugh misrepresented his "phony soldiers" comment. As Media Matters documented, Limbaugh had the following exchange with a caller on his September 26 radio show: LIMBAUGH: There s a lot more than that that they don t understand. They can t even -- if -- the next guy that calls here, I m gonna ask him: Why should we pull -- what is the imperative for pulling out? What s in it for the United States to pull out? They can t -- I don t think they have an answer for that other than, "Well, we just gotta bring the troops home." CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what -- LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people. CALLER 2: No, it s not, and what s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media. LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers. CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they re willing to sacrifice for their country. LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined -- On September 28, Limbaugh asserted that his "phony soldiers" comment was a reference to Jesse MacBeth, an anti-war activist who pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for pretending to be an injured Iraq war veteran. However, Limbaugh did not refer to MacBeth during his September 26 broadcast until one minute and 50 seconds after making his "phony soldiers" comment. Indeed, at no point during his September 26 radio show did Limbaugh refer to any soldiers he considered to be fake prior to making his "phony soldiers" comment. Moreover, in an effort to support his assertion that Media Matters distorted his remarks, Limbaugh actually misrepresented his own comments. Limbaugh twice claimed that rather than speaking generally of soldiers who support withdrawal from Iraq, that he was "talking about one soldier with that phony soldier comment, Jesse MacBeth." But as the transcript makes clear, Limbaugh actually referred to "phony soldiers," plural. Responding to the caller s statement that supporters of withdrawal "like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media," Limbaugh responded, "The phony soldiers" [emphasis added]. From the September 28 edition of Premiere Radio Networks The Rush Limbaugh Show: LIMBAUGH: I was not talking, as [MSNBC s] Contessa Brewer said here, about the anti-war movement generally. I was talking about one soldier with that "phony soldier" comment, Jesse MacBeth. They had exactly what I m going to play for you. This is Michael J. Fox all over again. Media Matters had the transcript, but they selectively choose what they want to make their point. Here is -- it runs about 3 minutes and 13 seconds -- the entire transcript, in context, that led to this so-called controversy. [...] LIMBAUGH: He just assumed that what he was told was true, that I called anti-war troops "phony soldiers," when everybody involved in this knows full well I was talking about one genuine, convicted, lying, fake soldier who was undermining this mission, who was doing his best to demoralize the troops. I stand up for the troops. The Democrat [sic] Party has been trying to demoralize them. The Democrat Party has been trying to lose the Iraq war, the war on terror. They own defeat. They are invested in it. They have failed to hang defeat around the neck of this president and the presidency they have been trying to destroy. Later on September 28, Limbaugh again changed his story after a caller pointed out the contradiction: LIMBAUGH: Putting it all in context -- I m sorry you missed it. What I can tell you is that what you re hearing on these shows is, is so incompetently, purposefully taken out of context. It s something I never said. I was talking -- I did say, "phony soldiers," talking about an actual fraud named Jesse MacBeth, who is found -- CALLER: But you did say "soldiers" in plural, though, didn t you? LIMBAUGH: Yes, because there have been a number of these people, but they were not active duty -- I was not talking about anti-war, active duty troops. I was talking about people who ve been exposed as frauds who never served in Iraq but claimed to have seen all these atrocities, [unintelligible]. Claimed to be a Green Beret, he was an Army Ranger, he never was [unintelligible]. Claimed that he had a Purple Heart. He never got one. He was busted out of the Army in 44 days in boot camp. This is the guy I was talking about. CALLER: OK, I don t know much about him, but, uh, can we talk about global warming? Further, contrary to Limbaugh s assertion that Media Matters took him out of context, Media Matters item documenting Limbaugh s comments included a 985-word transcript from the show along with 4 minutes and 38 seconds of audio. One minute and 50 seconds after making his "phony soldiers" comment, Limbaugh told listeners, "Here is a Morning Update that we did recently talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. And they have their celebrities. One of them was Jesse MacBeth." Limbaugh then read from a September 25 "Morning Update" article and podcast (subscription required) posted on his website about MacBeth. Limbaugh s assertion that he was talking only about MacBeth is further undermined by the fact that in a conversation immediately before the one in which Limbaugh referred to "phony soldiers," he appeared to question whether a caller who had advocated withdrawing from Iraq had actually been a soldier, as he had claimed. From Limbaugh s September 26 radio show: LIMBAUGH: Mike, you can t possibly be a Republican. CALLER 1: I am. LIMBAUGH: You are -- you are -- CALLER 1: I am definitely a Republican. LIMBAUGH: You can t be a Republican. You are -- CALLER 1: Oh, I am definitely a Republican. LIMBAUGH: You are tarnishing the reputation, cause you sound just like a Democrat. CALLER 1: No, but -- LIMBAUGH: The answer to your question -- CALLER 1: -- seriously, how long do we have to stay there -- LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes! CALLER 1: -- to win it? How long? LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes! It is very serious. CALLER 1: And that is what? LIMBAUGH: This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. We stay as long -- just like your job. You do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously. CALLER 1: So then you say we need to stay there forever -- LIMBAUGH: I -- it won t -- CALLER 1: -- because that s what it ll take. LIMBAUGH: No, Bill, or Mike -- I m sorry. I m confusing you with the guy from Texas. CALLER 1: See, I -- I ve used to be military, OK? And I am a Republican. LIMBAUGH: Yeah. Yeah. CALLER 1: And I do live [inaudible] but -- LIMBAUGH: Right. Right. Right, I know. CALLER 1: -- you know, really -- I want you to be saying how long it s gonna take. LIMBAUGH: And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon! CALLER 1: How long do we have to stay there? LIMBAUGH: You re not listening to what I say. You can t possibly be a Republican. I m answering every question. That s not what you want to hear, so it s not even penetrating your little wall of armor you ve got built up. Limbaugh s "phony soldiers" comment and his subsequent discussion of MacBeth are below: LIMBAUGH: Another Mike, this one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello. CALLER 2: Hi Rush, thanks for taking my call. LIMBAUGH: You bet. CALLER 2: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am a serving American military, in the Army. I ve been serving for 14 years, very proudly. LIMBAUGH: Thank you, sir. CALLER 2: And, you know, I m one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I m proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, if we pull -- what these people don t understand is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is about impossible because of all the stuff that s over there, it d take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse, and we d have to go right back over there within a year or so. And -- LIMBAUGH: There s a lot more than that that they don t understand. They can t even -- if -- the next guy that calls here, I m gonna ask him: Why should we pull -- what is the imperative for pulling out? What s in it for the United States to pull out? They can t -- I don t think they have an answer for that other than, "Well, we just gotta bring the troops home." CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what -- LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people. CALLER 2: No, it s not, and what s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media. LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers. CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they re willing to sacrifice for their country. LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined -- CALLER 2: A lot of them -- the new kids, yeah. LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you re going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you re going there or Afghanistan or somewhere. CALLER 2: Exactly, sir. And -- and my other comment was -- and the reason I was calling for -- was to report to Jill about the fact that we didn t, didn t find any weapons of mass destruction. Actually, we have found weapons of mass destruction in chemical agents that [inaudible] been using against us for awhile now. I ve done two tours in Iraq. I just got back in June and there were many instances of -- since [inaudible] not know what they re using in their IEDs [improvised explosive devices]. They re using mustard artillery rounds. The vx-artillery rounds in their IEDs. Because they didn t know what they were using, they didn t do it right, and so it just kind of -- it, it didn t really hurt anybody but there are -- those munitions are over there, it s just -- it s a huge desert. If they ve buried it somewhere, we re never gonna find it. LIMBAUGH: Well, you know, that s a moot point for me right now -- MIKE: Rush -- LIMBAUGH: -- the weapons of mass destruction. We gotta get beyond that. We re, we re there. What -- who cares if, if -- we all know they were there and, and Mahmoud [Ahmadinejad, Iranian president] even admitted it in one of his speeches here about -- talkin about Saddam using the poison mustard gas or whatever it is on his own people -- but that, that s moot, right? What, what s more important is all this is taking place now in the midst of the surge working. And all of these anti-war Democrats are getting even more hell-bent on pulling out of there, which means that success on the part of you and, and your colleagues over there is, is a great threat to them. It s just, it s frustrating and maddening, and it is why they must be kept in the minority. Look, I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much. I gotta -- let me see -- got something -- here is a "Morning Update" that we did recently talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. And they have their celebrities. One of them was Jesse MacBeth. Now, he was a "corporal," I say in quotes - 23 years old. [reading from "Morning Update" (subscription required)] What made Jesse MacBeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn t his Purple Heart. It wasn t his being affiliated with post traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, though. What made Jesse MacBeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage in their view off the battlefield. Without regard to consequences, he told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq: American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account translated into Arabic and spread widely across the internet, Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth describes the horrors this way: We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque. Now, recently, Jesse MacBeth, a poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court, and you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse MacBeth was in the Army, folks, briefly -- 44-days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse MacBeth isn t an Army Ranger. Never was. He isn t a corporal. Never was. He never won the Purple Heart and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen." You probably haven t even heard about this, and if you have, you haven t heard much about it. This doesn t fit the narrative and the template of the drive-by media and the Democrat Party as to who a genuine war hero is. Don t look for any retractions, by the way, not from the anti-war left, the anti-military drive-by media or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse MacBeth s lies about our troops, because the truth of the left is fiction, is what serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities cause they can t find any that fit the template of the way they see the U.S. military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.

As Media Matters for America documented, on the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Rush Limbaugh characterized service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers." It was not the first time, however, that Limbaugh has labeled a military service member a "phony." On the June 27 edition of his radio program, Limbaugh claimed that the discredited Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth s smear campaign against Sen. John Kerry s (D-MA) Vietnam record "worked because it was true," adding: "The guy s a fraud! He s a total phony, and people were able to see it!" As Media Matters documented, the Swift Boat Veterans attacks against Kerry s military service during the 2004 presidential election were debunked or discredited. From the June 27 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks The Rush Limbaugh Show: LIMBAUGH: So you ve got -- you ve got discord on the Democrat side, and now this [Washington Post columnist] Richard Cohen piece comes along -- "How the GOP Could Win." Some of you might think this is sophomoric, but to me it indicates two things, and I ll give you the details of it here in just a second. Cohen is worried about the McGovernization [sic] of the Democrat [sic] Party. Something I have told you is happening for two years. Because of their anti-war stance, because of their open hostility to victory, because of their investment in defeat -- they own it. You know it and I know it. That this is going to come back to haunt them at some point. It s just off the page right now because of the immigration bill. People only have an emotional reservoir of so much content, and the immigration bill is attracting all the attention. But if you dig deep, you can find the Democrats out there a little worried. He said -- he starts his piece this way. "There are two ways to predict the winner of the 08 presidential race. You can check the polls or read some history. The polls tell you that with Bush s approval ratings abysmally low, with the war in Iraq becoming increasingly unpopular, with the GOP lacking a dominant candidate, and with the party divided over immigration, social issues and even religion" -- what s that mean -- "Mitt Romney s Mormonism," anyway, "the next president is bound to be a Democrat, but history begs to differ." The history Mr. Cohen refers to is 1972. "By the end of that year, 56,844 Americans had been killed in Vietnam, a war that almost no one thought could still be won and that no one could quite figure out how to end. Nevertheless, the winner in that year s presidential election, Richard Nixon. Forty-nine of 50 states he won. The war, of course, went on. Just as it is hard to understand how the British ousted Winston Churchill after he had led them to victory in Europe in World War II, so it may be hard now to appreciate how Nixon won a landslide while presiding over such a dismal war. "In the first place, he was the incumbent, with all the advantages and so forth. In the second place, back then the Vietnam War was not as unpopular as you might think -- or for that matter, as the Iraq war is now. In 72 almost 60 percent of Americans approved of the way Nixon was handling the war. "But maybe more to the point, most Americans didn t endorse the way the Democrats would handle the war, nor the way the antiwar movement was behaving. Nixon seized on those sentiments and, in a feat that historians will be challenged to explain, characterized McGovern as something of a sissy. In fact, the Democrat [sic] presidential nominee was a genuine World War II hero, a B-24 pilot with 35 combat missions, and a Distinguished Flying Cross on his chest. Nixon, in contrast, had served during the war but never saw combat, but he had, however, seen the polls. "This is similar to what happened in the 04 campaign. The Bush-Cheney ticket consisted of two Vietnam slackers. Bush had served in the Air National Guard, and Cheney had obtained five deferments. Their opponent was the much-decorated John Kerry. Yet during the campaign, the Republican ticket and its allies in the Swift Boat Veterans movement managed to paint Kerry as a quivering liar. The character attack was so bold, so outrageous, that it of course worked." No, it worked because it was true! The guy s a fraud! He s a total phony, and people were able to see it! "Now we come to the current race. The war in Iraq is not -- or not yet -- an issue for Republicans. With the exception of [Rep.] Ron Paul [R-TX] and [former Virginia Gov.] Jim Gilmore [R]." Well, of course, he doesn t factor in [Sen. Richard] Lugar [R-IN] and [Sen. George] Voinovich [R-OH] jumping ship yesterday. But he goes on, to get to the end of this he says "this is where history raises its ugly head. The GOP is adept at painting Democrats as soft on national security."

During the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq "phony soldiers." He made the comment while discussing with a caller a conversation he had with a previous caller, "Mike from Chicago," who said he "used to be military," and "believe[s] that we should pull out of Iraq." Limbaugh told the second caller, whom he identified as "Mike, this one from Olympia, Washington," that "[t]here s a lot" that people who favor U.S. withdrawal "don t understand" and that when asked why the United States should pull out, their only answer is, " Well, we just gotta bring the troops home. ... Save the -- keeps the troops safe or whatever," adding, "[I]t s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people." "Mike" from Olympia replied, "No, it s not, and what s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media." Limbaugh interjected, "The phony soldiers." The caller, who had earlier said, "I am a serving American military, in the Army," agreed, replying, "The phony soldiers." On August 19, The New York Times published an op-ed by seven members of the U.S. Army 82nd Airborne Division. They ended their assessment of the situation in Iraq with the following passage: In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, "We need security, not free food." In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are -- an army of occupation -- and force our withdrawal. Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities. We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through. On September 12, The New York Times noted: "Two of the soldiers who wrote of their pessimism about the war in an Op-Ed article that appeared in The New York Times on Aug. 19 were killed in Baghdad on Monday." As Media Matters for America has documented, Limbaugh denounced as "contemptible" and "indecent" MoveOn.org s much-discussed advertisement -- titled "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" -- critical of Gen. David Petraeus, but has repeatedly attacked the patriotism of those with whom he disagrees. For instance, on the January 25 broadcast of his radio show, he told his audience that he had a new name for Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), a Vietnam veteran: "Senator Betrayus." A day earlier, Hagel had sided with Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in voting to approve a nonbinding resolution declaring that President Bush s escalation in Iraq was against "the national interest." Additionally, on August 21, 2006, Limbaugh said: "I want to respectfully disagree with the president on the last part of what he said. I am going to challenge the patriotism of people who disagree with him because the people that disagree with him want to lose." As Media Matters has also documented, on the August 2, 2005, program, Limbaugh repeatedly referred to Iraq war veteran and then-Democratic congressional candidate Paul Hackett as "another liberal Democrat trying to hide behind a military uniform" and accused him of going to Iraq "to pad the resum ." On the day of Limbaugh s comments, Hackett narrowly lost a special election to Republican Jean Schmidt for Ohio s 2nd Congressional District seat. From the September 26 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks The Rush Limbaugh Show: LIMBAUGH: Mike in Chicago, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello. CALLER 1: Hi Rush, how you doing today? LIMBAUGH: I m fine sir, thank you. CALLER 1: Good. Why is it that you always just accuse the Democrats of being against the war and suggest that there are absolutely no Republicans that could possibly be against the war? LIMBAUGH: Well, who are these Republicans? I can think of Chuck Hagel, and I can think of Gordon Smith, two Republican senators, but they don t want to lose the war like the Democrats do. I can t think of -- who are the Republicans in the anti-war movement? CALLER 1: I m just -- I m not talking about the senators. I m talking about the general public -- like you accuse the public of all the Democrats of being, you know, wanting to lose, but -- LIMBAUGH: Oh, come on! Here we go again. I uttered a truth, and you can t handle it, so you gotta call here and change the subject. How come I m not also hitting Republicans? I don t know a single Republican or conservative, Mike, who wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat. The Democrats have made the last four years about that specifically. CALLER 1: Well, I am a Republican, and I ve listened to you for a long time, and you re right on a lot of things, but I do believe that we should pull out of Iraq. I don t think it s winnable. And I m not a Democrat, but I just -- sometimes you ve got to cut the losses. LIMBAUGH: Well, you -- you -- CALLER 1: I mean, sometimes you really gotta know when you re wrong. LIMBAUGH: Well, yeah, you do. I m not wrong on this. The worst thing that can happen is losing this, flying out of there, waving the white flag. Do you have -- CALLER 1: Oh, I m not saying that. I m not saying anything like that, but, you know -- LIMBAUGH: Well, of course you are. CALLER 1: No, I m not. LIMBAUGH: Bill, the truth is -- the truth is the truth, Mike. CALLER 1: We did what we were supposed to do, OK. We got rid of Saddam Hussein. We got rid of a lot of the terrorists. Let them run their country -- LIMBAUGH: Oh, good lord! Good lord. [...] CALLER 1: How long is it gonna -- how long do you think we re going to have to be there for them to take care of that? LIMBAUGH: Mike -- CALLER 1: How long -- you know -- what is it? LIMBAUGH: Mike -- CALLER 1: What is it? LIMBAUGH: Mike, you can t possibly be a Republican. CALLER 1: I am. LIMBAUGH: You are -- you are -- CALLER 1: I am definitely a Republican. LIMBAUGH: You can t be a Republican. You are -- CALLER 1: Oh, I am definitely a Republican. LIMBAUGH: You are tarnishing the reputation, cause you sound just like a Democrat. CALLER 1: No, but -- LIMBAUGH: The answer to your question -- CALLER 1: -- seriously, how long do we have to stay there -- LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes! CALLER 1: -- to win it? How long? LIMBAUGH: As long as it takes! It is very serious. CALLER 1: And that is what? LIMBAUGH: This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. We stay as long -- just like your job. You do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously. CALLER 1: So then you say we need to stay there forever -- LIMBAUGH: I -- it won t -- CALLER 1: -- because that s what it ll take. LIMBAUGH: No, Bill, or Mike -- I m sorry. I m confusing you with the guy from Texas. CALLER 1: See, I -- I ve used to be military, OK? And I am a Republican. LIMBAUGH: Yeah. Yeah. CALLER 1: And I do live [inaudible] but -- LIMBAUGH: Right. Right. Right, I know. CALLER 1: -- you know, really -- I want you to be saying how long it s gonna take. LIMBAUGH: And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon! CALLER 1: How long do we have to stay there? LIMBAUGH: You re not listening to what I say. You can t possibly be a Republican. I m answering every question. That s not what you want to hear, so it s not even penetrating your little wall of armor you ve got built up. [...] LIMBAUGH: Another Mike, this one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello. CALLER 2: Hi Rush, thanks for taking my call. LIMBAUGH: You bet. CALLER 2: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am a serving American military, in the Army. I ve been serving for 14 years, very proudly. LIMBAUGH: Thank you, sir. CALLER 2: And, you know, I m one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I m proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, if we pull -- what these people don t understand is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is about impossible because of all the stuff that s over there, it d take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse, and we d have to go right back over there within a year or so. And -- LIMBAUGH: There s a lot more than that that they don t understand. They can t even -- if -- the next guy that calls here, I m gonna ask him: Why should we pull -- what is the imperative for pulling out? What s in it for the United States to pull out? They can t -- I don t think they have an answer for that other than, "Well, we just gotta bring the troops home." CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what -- LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people. CALLER 2: No, it s not, and what s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media. LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers. CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they re willing to sacrifice for their country. LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined -- CALLER 2: A lot of them -- the new kids, yeah. LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you re going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you re going there or Afghanistan or somewhere. CALLER 2: Exactly, sir.

On September 10, MoveOn.org s much-discussed advertisement headlined "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" critical of Gen. David Petraeus, appeared in The New York Times. On the September 11 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called the advertisement "contemptible" and "indecent." However, months earlier, on his radio show, he told his audience that he had a new name for Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE): "Senator Betrayus." On the January 25 broadcast (subscription required) of his radio show, Limbaugh broke from his commentary on an interview of Vice President Dick Cheney on the January 24 edition of CNN s The Situation Room to say: "By the way, we had a caller call, couldn t stay on the air, got a new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska, we got General Petraeus and we got Senator Betrayus, new name for Senator Hagel." A day earlier, Hagel had sided with Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in voting to approve a nonbinding resolution declaring that Bush s escalation in Iraq was against "the national interest." In a September 10 blog post, Politico senior political writer Ben Smith reported that the General Betray Us ad "appears to have been borrowed indirectly from Rush Limbaugh and noted that "[a]ccording to a Free Republican [sic: Free Republic] diary, Rush took a call in January from a listener who suggested he contrast General Petraeus with Senator Chuck Betrayus -- i.e., Hagel." In the January 26 post Smith cited, Free Republic commenter "Recovering_Democrat" wrote that "Rush said on his show yesterday that a caller suggested the new name for Senator Hagel." Indeed, on the February 4 edition of ABC s This Week, host George Stephanopoulos told Hagel that Limbaugh "calls you Senator Betrayus. " On the February 5 broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh played an audio clip of Stephanopoulos telling Hagel that Limbaugh calls him "Senator Betrayus." Limbaugh didn t disavow the characterization; in fact, Limbaugh said in response to Hagel s comments: "But note he doesn t comment specifically on what I say. Well, you know, Rush has to be somewhere, he can say whatever he wants, but didn t dispute the substance of my point." On the September 14 edition of Fox News Fox m sorry, but I don t know what you re talking about. I haven t heard Rush Limbaugh do that. Later that day on his nationally syndicated radio show, Limbaugh played audio from Davis Fox t participate in it because I don t do that, but -- what have I said? What in the world have I said? All I said was that they re invested in defeat. I ve said that it s just -- it s unacceptable, it s indecent the way they attack General Petraeus." In addition to his "Senator Betrayus" comment, Limbaugh has repeatedly and explicitly attacked the patriotism of his political opponents, as Media Matters for America has documented: In a commentary segment on the September 7, 2006, broadcast of the CBS Evening News, Limbaugh said, "But some Americans, sadly, not interested in victory, and yet they want us to believe that their behavior is patriotic. Well, it s not. When the critics are more interested in punishing this country over a few incidents of Abu Ghraib and Guant namo Bay than they are in defeating those who want to kill us, when they seek to destroy a foreign surveillance program which is designed to identify those who want to kill us and how they intend to do it, when they want to grant those who want to kill us U.S. constitutional rights, I don t call that patriotic. Patriotism is rallying behind the country, regardless of party affiliation, to defeat Islamofascism." On the August 21, 2006, broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh said, "I want to respectfully disagree with the president on the last part of what he said. I am going to challenge the patriotism of people who disagree with him because the people that disagree with him want to lose." On the August 23, 2005, broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh said, "It s time for somebody to tell the people on the left, you re damn right we re questioning your patriotism." Limbaugh subsequently featured this self-described "brilliant El Rushbo monologue" on his website under the heading, "You re Damn Right, American Left; We re Questioning Your Patriotism." On the September 17, 2004, edition of his radio show, Limbaugh said that half of 2004 Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry s (MA) base "hates the military, hates America, hates Bush, hates the world except for France and Germany." Additionally, on September 11, Limbaugh referred to terrorist Osama bin Laden as "U -- Ubama -- I m sorry, Usama," continuing a pattern, which Media Matters for America has documented, of conflating Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) with bin Laden. From the January 25 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks The Rush Limbaugh Show: LIMBAUGH: Does that sound like Cheney is standing up in righteous indignation and pointing his finger at Blitzer and demanding that he shut up and accusing them doing a hit piece? Does it sound like that at all? No, it doesn t. Next question from Wolf Blitzer. "What if the Senate passes a resolution saying this is not a good idea? Will that stop you?" CHENEY [audio clip]: It won t stop us, and it would be, I think, detrimental from the standpoint of the troops, as General Petraeus said yesterday. He was asked by [Sen.] Joe Lieberman [I-CT], among others, in his testimony about this notion that somehow the Senate could vote overwhelmingly for him, send him on his new assignment, and then pass a resolution at the same time and say, "But we don t agree with the mission you ve been given." LIMBAUGH: Right. By the way, we had a caller call, couldn t stay on the air, got a new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska. We got General Petraeus, and we got Senator Betrayus. New name for Senator Hagel. Here s now one final bit -- well, two more. Question from Blitzer: "Here s the problem that you have. The administration, credibility in Congress with the American public, because of the mistakes, because of the previous statements, the last throes, the comment you made a year and a half ago, the insurgency was in its last throes. How do you build up that credibility because so many of these Democrats and a lot of Republicans now are saying that they don t believe you anymore." From the February 4 edition of ABC s This Week: STEPHANOPOULOS: You re taking a lot of heat from conservatives over your position. Here was Rush Limbaugh this week. LIMBAUGH [audio clip]: If Chuck Hagel had been around during D-Day with the same kind of media we have today, he would have demanded that the invasion stop after the landing because there had been so many deaths. War is not something you put on a timetable. STEPHANOPOULOS: He calls you "Senator Betrayus." HAGEL: Well, listen, everybody has to be somewhere. Everyone has to make a living. Rush has to make a living. And he has a right to say whatever he wants. From the February 5 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show: LIMBAUGH: The word of my [Nobel Peace Prize] nomination just continues to roil drive-by media outlets, and it continued over the weekend. Then, on George Stephanopoulos show on Sunday, he had Chuck Hagel as his -- as guest. They had this exchange. [begin audio clip] STEPHANOPOULOS: You re taking a lot of heat from conservatives over your position. Here was Rush Limbaugh this week. LIMBAUGH [audio clip]: If Chuck Hagel had been around during D-Day with the same kind of media we have today, he would have demanded that the invasion stop after the landing because there had been so many deaths. War is not something you put on a timetable. STEPHANOPOULOS: He calls you "Senator Betrayus." HAGEL: Well, listen, everybody has to be somewhere. Everyone has to make a living. Rush has to make a living. And he has a right to say whatever he wants. [end audio clip] LIMBAUGH: But note he doesn t comment specifically on what I say. "Well, you know, Rush has to be somewhere, he can say whatever he wants," but didn t dispute the substance of my point. From Smith s September 10 Politico blog post: A footnote to the fuss over MoveOn s "General Betray Us" ad, a favored GOP talking point of the day. (Genius? Idiocy? Interested in readers views.) Anyway, it also appears to have been borrowed, indirectly, from Rush Limbaugh. According to a Free Republican diary, Rush took a call in January from a listener who suggested he contrast General Petraeus with Senator Chuck Betrayus -- i.e., Hagel. From the September 11 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show: LIMBAUGH: The Democrats are accusing Petraeus of being a patsy. The Democrats are accusing him of lying. I ve suggested to you that if you ever -- cause, you know, I m talented here, folks. I can read the stitches on the fastballs. I can see between the lines. I know these people like every square inch of my glorious naked body, and I am telling you that when they say Petraeus is lying, it means they are. When they say that Petraeus is a puppet, they are. And I ll tell you who s pulling their strings: MoveOn.org and that -- that contemptible, indecent ad that ran yesterday in The New York Times. The kook, fringe, left-wing blogosphere -- that s who they re afraid of. They re not afraid of U -- Ubama -- I m sorry, Usama. They are not afraid of the enemy. From the September 14 edition of Fox News Fox re talking about. But what do the Democrats have to say, and how was President Bush s address received across America as well? Time now for a fair and balanced debate. Former special counsel to the President Clinton and author of Scandal: How Gotcha Politics is Destroying America Lanny Davis joins us live, screen left, appropriately enough. And screen right, former RNC senior adviser Terry Holt. We thank you very much, Terry, for joining us as well. HOLT: Thank you. DOOCY: All right, Lanny, let s start with you. None of the -- I know you re familiar with Hillary Rodham Clinton, she wants to be president. She has not come out and denounced this ad. Do you think she should? DAVIS: I think every single Democrat should say that MoveOn.org using the expression "General Betray Us" is engaging in outrageous and, in my opinion, offensive rhetoric, but no less so than some of the hatemongering that I hear from Rush Limbaugh and some of the people on the right questioning the patriotism of people like MoveOn.org who have a right under the First Amendment -- DOOCY: Sure. DAVIS: -- to say anything they want. Why we give them such credence when nobody can take seriously that kind of - DOOCY: Right, but Lanny -- DAVIS: -- outrageous exercise of their First Amendment rights is, to me, amazing that you would start out with that subject rather than George Bush s speech last night, which is important. DOOCY: Well, we are going to get to that. That was our lead story today, but should Hillary denounce it? I know you said all Democrats. Why hasn t she? DAVIS: Um, I think Senator Clinton should denounce it. I don t know why, but again, you re still focused on Moveon.org rather than President Bush. Why are you, and you said we re going to get to that -- DOOCY: Yeah, we will. DAVIS: -- but you re still following up on an issue -- why are we -- why are you not questioning Rush Limbaugh attacking patriotism? Why hasn t Fox done one program about Rush Limbaugh? Would you answer that question? Let me interview you and Fox m sorry, but I don t know what you re talking about I haven t heard Rush Limbaugh do that. I ll look into it -- DAVIS: Why don t you -- why don t you do a study and invite me back, and we ll have a program about Rush Limbaugh rather than just focusing on what you call the left. DOOCY: OK. Lanny, Lanny -- you re filibustering. Let s go to Terry. Terry, you re comment on this. HOLT: Well, I think that MoveOn.org has quickly become one of the largest and most influential special interest groups dominating the Democratic Party, and I think they won t denounce it simply because they re afraid that they ll be denounced by MoveOn.org, who carries with them the perception that they have a stranglehold on the liberal Democratic base. I mean, this is one of those groups that nobody had ever heard of five years ago, and now every politician on the Democratic side runs in fear whenever MoveOn.org utters a word. From the September 14 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show: LIMBAUGH: Lanny Davis is upset at me. The former Clinton spinmeister was on the Fox News Channel this morning on Fox re familiar with Hillary. She wants to be president. She s not come out and denounced this MoveOn.org ad. Do you think she should? [begin audio clip] DAVIS: Every single Democrat should say that MoveOn.org using the expression "General Betray Us" is engaging in outrageous and, in my opinion, offensive rhetoric, but no less so than some of the hatemongering that I hear from Rush Limbaugh and some of the people on the right questioning the patriotism of people like MoveOn.org who have a right under the First Amendment -- DOOCY: Sure. DAVIS: -- to say anything they want. Why we give them such credence when nobody can take seriously that kind of -- DOOCY: Right, but Lanny -- DAVIS: -- outrageous exercise of their First Amendment rights is, to me, amazing that you would start out with that subject rather than George Bush s speech last night. LIMBAUGH: So the conversation continues with Lanny Davis bringing me back into it. [begin audio clip] DAVIS: Senator Clinton should denounce it. I don t know why, but again, you re still focused on MoveOn.org rather than President Bush. Why are you not questioning Rush Limbaugh attacking patriotism? Why hasn t Fox done one program about Rush Limbaugh? Would you answer that question? Let me interview you and Fox m sorry, but I don t know what you re talking about. I haven t heard Rush Limbaugh do that. I ll look into it -- DAVIS: Why don t you -- why don t you do a study and invite me back, and we ll have a program about Rush Limbaugh rather than just focusing on what you call the left. DOOCY: OK. Lanny, Lanny -- you re filibustering. [end audio clip] LIMBAUGH: I welcome it. I hope Fox does a program on me. I won t participate in it because I don t do that, but -- what have I said? What in the world have I said? All I said was that they re invested in defeat. I ve said that it s just -- it s unacceptable, it s indecent the way they attack General Petraeus. Ladies and gentlemen, I don t know if this conclusion has come to anybody else out there, but during the Petraeus hearings -- and even in the postmortem -- you know, not one liberal, not one Democrat has asked what can we do to help you and the troops. While they were talking to General Petraeus, Lanny, there wasn t one Democrat in the House or Senate on either committee that asked the general what they could do to help him and the troops.

During the September 20 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, discussing a newly released audio tape reported to be from Osama bin Laden in which he calls for Pakistanis to overthrow President Pervez Musharraf, Rush Limbaugh asserted: "Well, we ve got another tape from -- I get these guys confused -- Usama bin Laden. Another tape says he s going to invade Pakistan and declare war on Pakistan and Musharraf, which, ladies and gentlemen, puts him on the same page with a Democrat presidential candidate -- that would be Barack Uss-Obama. " Limbaugh then aired an audio clip of a recent statement by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL): "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won t act, we will." Misrepresenting Obama s comment, Limbaugh then said: "All right, so, we re going to attack Pakistan. Poor Musharaff s going to get it on both ends if Barack s elected." However, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented (here, here, and here), Obama never said he would "attack Pakistan," or "declare war on Pakistan and Musharraf." As Limbaugh noted, in his August 1 speech, Obama did claim that "[i]f we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won t act, we will," but he did not elaborate on the nature of this action. From Obama s August 1 speech: OBAMA: As president, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan. I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an Al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won t act, we will. And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my administration will increase America s commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally. During an August 6 campaign stop in Iowa, when an audience member asked Obama about his comments, Obama responded, "The misreporting that was done needs to be cleared up. I never called for an invasion of Pakistan." From the September 20 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks The Rush Limbaugh Show: LIMBAUGH: Well, we ve got another tape from -- I get these guys confused -- Usama bin Laden. Another tape says he s going to invade Pakistan and declare war on Pakistan and Musharraf, which, ladies and gentlemen, puts him on the same page with a Democrat presidential candidate -- that would be Barack "Uss-Obama." And let s go back to August 1st: "U-Bama" gave a speech on counterterrorism, and here s a portion of what he said. OBAMA [audio clip]: If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will. LIMBAUGH: All right, so, we re going to attack Pakistan. Poor Musharraf s going to get it on both ends if Barack s elected.

On the September 18 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, discussing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton s (D-NY) new health-care plan, Sean Hannity claimed that Clinton is "basically repackaging her old proposal with new rhetoric, here, in the hopes that we ll be dumb and we ll buy the new rhetoric," and that "in the end, it s going to be exactly what she was proposing in 93." Hannity suggested that a September 17 New York Times article reported that Clinton is falsely claiming that her new plan is different from the plan she proposed in 1993 during the presidency of her husband, Bill Clinton. In fact, the Times article reported that "[a] variety of health policy analysts ... said the change between Clinton 1 and Clinton 2 was striking." The article quoted Stuart Altman, "a health economist at Brandeis University who has been a policy adviser since the Nixon Administration," saying that Clinton s new plan "is much less radical: it s not fair at all to say it s a redo of the old plan." With regard to Clinton s 1993 proposal, the Times reported: "The first plan, for example, would have required people and employers to join new regional alliances to purchase coverage. It would have tried to control total health spending through a complicated system of managed competition, and would have created a National Health Board with sweeping authority to regulate that system. In addition, employers would have been required to provide coverage to their workers." By contrast, the Times reported, "This time Mrs. Clinton would create tax incentives to help small businesses with the cost of coverage, but would not require them to offer it." A September 18 Washington Post article similarly reported that "[t]he plan remains a far cry from the one Clinton and the controversial 500-person task force assembled behind closed doors at the start of Bill Clinton s first term." Additionally, a September 18 op-ed by New York Times columnist David Brooks stated that Clinton and her staff "never seriously consider[ed] a Canadian-style single-payer system" in the current proposal. Brooks asserted: "This time the change is evolutionary, not revolutionary. The private insurance/employer-based system will still remain the heart and soul of the social contract -- it s just that more people will be given tax credits so they can afford to buy in." From the September 18 edition of ABC Radio Networks The Sean Hannity Show: HANNITY: One of the major differences is, if you go back to Hillary 1.0, her first version, the length of the document was nearly 1,400 pages. The length of this new document, her new plan: 10 pages with footnotes. That s it. I mean, it s not -- the original cost in 93: $331 billion over six years. It s nearly twice that, $110 billion a year. By the way, that s just the tip of the iceberg. It s going to be a lot more than that. Now, I want you to listen to this, because it s -- Hillary is very, very careful. Even The New York Times, which rarely gets a lot of this stuff right, they picked up on this. "Wary of Past, Clinton Unveils a Health Plan." Now what are they saying there, that she basically -- uh-oh -- she s not gonna really tell people what this is about because she knows what s gonna happen. So she is engaged in putting out platitudes, slogans, clich s, no specifics, no justification for her $110 billion-a-year figure. She goes on and on, "This is not government run. There will be no new bureaucracy." [...] HANNITY: She doesn t want to be honest about what she s really proposing here, so what you have are carefully crafted, focus-group-tested wording about how she s gonna try and sell this to you. And this is what they ve come up with; here, listen to this: CLINTON [audio clip]: This is not government-run. There will be no new bureaucracies. You can keep the doctors you know and trust. You keep the insurance you have, if you like it. But this plan expands personal choice and increases competition to keep costs down. HANNITY: Now putting aside the obvious manipulation here -- this is purposefully distorted, these are focus group phrases that they have come up with to manipulate the American people into thinking, "It s not really Hillarycare, this is about pro-choice." For example, it s like the pro-life, pro-choice argument, here. If we just call it choice, people will find it more acceptable for themselves. And she has been the champion of the health-care Titanic since 1993. And basically what she s recognizing here is she had to learn some lessons. And all she s doing is basically repackaging her old proposal with new rhetoric, here, in the hopes that we ll be dumb and we ll buy the new rhetoric. She now basically wants to frame the proposal as anti-bureaucratic, anti-big-government, but yet, in the end, it s going to be exactly what she was proposing in 93. Now, in a lot of ways, conservatives ought to take heart in this. I think that means conservatives have won in terms of framing the debate. And she has to acknowledge this here. In other words, we re forcing liberals, at least rhetorically, that they ve got to rid themselves of their embrace of big government.

On the September 14 edition of his nationally syndicated talk show, conservative radio host Mark Levin took credit for a new advertisement by Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani s campaign attacking Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY). Levin said that he met with Giuliani on September 11 at Fox News host Sean Hannity s 2007 Freedom Concert and suggested that the former New York mayor link Clinton with the liberal group MoveOn.org and demand that she and other Democratic presidential candidates denounce the group s September 10 advertisement in The New York Times criticizing Gen. David Petraeus. As Media Matters for America documented, Giuliani s ad misrepresented Clinton s position on the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing the president to use force in Iraq. Levin went on to describe Media Matters as a "phony group," claiming that it is linked to "Hillary Rotten and her husband, BJ Bill Clinton." In fact, Media Matters is not affiliated with any political candidate or party. From the September 14 edition of ABC Radio Networks The Mark Levin Show: LEVIN: Good evening my friends, this is Mark Levin. Our number is 877-381-3811 -- 877-381-3811. We did our analysis yesterday of the president s speech. Right there, right after his speech. No need to do more of that today, unless, of course, you want to talk about it. I don t know how much more can be said about MoveOn.org, the sleazeball operation that was set up in 1998 by the Clintonoids with their hemorrhoids. Funded by billionaires Peter Lewis and George Soros to fight Clinton s impeachment, and has been a Clinton front group ever since. And she is MoveOn.org. When I was at the Freedom Concert in New Jersey on Tuesday, I met briefly with Rudy Giuliani with Sean [Hannity], and I told Rudy Giuliani, "MoveOn.org should be linked to Hillary Clinton." I told him that every presidential candidate on that Democrat side, we should demand that they denounce this organization and what they have done. And little did I know that he was actually listening to me. It s the right thing to do. This is a Clinton front group, that s why she hasn t denounced it. Cause she likes it, she believes in it. We have all kinds of sordid groups out there that are linked to Hillary Rotten and her husband, "BJ" Bill Clinton. This, what is this, Council for American Progress, that s a phony group, Media Matters, a phony group, MoveOn.org, a phony group, and on and on. They all work together. They re all using different parts of the tax code as they try to slime their way to office.

During the September 10 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, discussing Gen. David Petraeus recent testimony on Iraq, host Rush Limbaugh asserted: "Three weeks ago, you had [House Majority Whip] Jim Clyburn [D-SC] of the Congressional Black Caucus saying, You know, if this report is good, it presents problems for us, meaning the Democrat [sic] Party." Limbaugh cited this as an example of how "Democrats message on this is all over the board." In fact, as Media Matters for America has documented, what Clyburn said during a July 30 "PostTalk" interview on washingtonpost.com is that if Petraeus were to report that the military effort in Iraq "is working very, very well at this point; we would be foolish to back away from it," it would cause "those 47 Blue Dogs ... to want to stay the course, and if the Republicans were to remain united, as they have been, then it would be a problem for us." In other words, Clyburn did not say that good news from Iraq is bad news for Democrats in electoral terms, but rather that a recommendation from Petraeus against withdrawal would impede Democrats efforts to garner support in Congress for legislation to begin withdrawal. Indeed, Clyburn added: "None of us want to see a bad result in Iraq. If we are going to get in position to yield a good result, I think Democrats want to see that." From the July 30 "PostTalk" interview of Clyburn on washingtonpost.com, video of which is available at the website: BALZ: What do Democrats do if General Petraeus comes in in September and says, "This is working very, very well at this point; we would be foolish to back away from it"? CLYBURN: Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that, simply because of those 47 Blue Dogs. I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course, and if the Republicans were to remain united, as they have been, then it would be a problem for us. So I think we, by and large, would do wise -- be wise to wait on the report. None of us want to see a bad result in Iraq. If we are going to get in position to yield a good result, I think Democrats want to see that. We love this country. We re as patriotic as anybody else about this. And we have loved ones involved in this issue just like everybody else. I ve got family and friends involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so I certainly want to see a good result. But I m certainly not going to just roll over because the president said. It is only because we get good intelligence from those people like General Petraeus who can be trusted to give us good information. Limbaugh s identification of Clyburn -- who is House majority whip, the third-highest position in the House after speaker and House majority leader -- solely as "of the Congressional Black Caucus" is not the first time he has injected race into a discussion. Other examples include: On the January 16 broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh called Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) a "half-minority" in the context of criticizing Obama for supporting his hometown Chicago Bears over the New Orleans Saints in the National Football League s National Football Conference championship game on January 21.On the February 14, 2006, broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh invented a "racial component" to explain Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett s departure from the Ohio Democratic Senate primary race. While reporting on Hackett s decision to withdraw from the race against then-Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) for the seat then held by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH), Limbaugh asserted: "And don t forget, Sherrod Brown is black. There s a racial component here, too," adding that "the newspaper that I m reading all this from is The New York Times, and they, of course, don t mention that." In fact, Brown is Caucasian -- a point Limbaugh acknowledged later in the program. Brown defeated DeWine in the 2006 midterm election.Limbaugh was forced to resign from his position as a commentator on ESPN following criticism of his controversial 2003 comments about Donovan McNabb, a quarterback for the NFL s Philadelphia Eagles. During the September 28, 2003, edition of ESPN s Sunday NFL Countdown, Limbaugh said that "[t]he media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well" and, therefore, that McNabb "got a lot of credit for the performance of this team [the Eagles] that he didn t deserve." On the February 9, 2006, broadcast of his show, Limbaugh said he "kind of like[s]" a caller s statement that Obama "is the Donovan McNabb of the U.S. Senate."On the August 21 broadcast of his show, Limbaugh asserted that Democrats are interested in Darfur for "two reasons. What color is the skin of the people in Darfur? It s black. And who do the Democrats really need to keep voting for them? If they lose a significant percentage of this voting bloc, they re in trouble." A caller to the show responded, "The black population," to which Limbaugh said, "Right." He also stated: "So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa, you get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Nelson Mandela -- who was bankrolled by communists for a time, had the support of certain communist leaders. You go to Ethiopia. You do the same thing." From the September 10 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks The Rush Limbaugh Show: LIMBAUGH: It is just startling to watch this. I can t describe for you the depth of rage, emotion, anger, frustration, all of those things that I feel when I see a four-star general in full military dress being told he s a liar. Being told that he is a puppet. Being told that nothing he says is going to be considered truthful. And he sits there, and he doesn t flinch, stares right back at them. I just -- I laugh when a four-star -- decorated four-star general in full military dress unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate -- and I think, last time I looked, as Duncan Hunter said, unanimous is pretty close to majority in the Senate -- the last -- the -- I look at him just not flinching. I look at Lantos telling him that his strategy of withdrawing a brigade is nothing, and I want to ask myself, where is the military expertise of Tom Lantos? Who is advising him? Has he been there? How long ago? I don t know, but I can tell you that the Democrats message on this is all over the board. Three weeks ago, you had Jim Clyburn of the Congressional Black Caucus saying, "You know, if this report is good, it presents problems for us," meaning the Democrat Party. You ve had Durbin, a number of others, and House Democrats have gone over to Iraq and said, "This is really working. This surge -- why, Al Anbar Province" -- six months ago Democrats were using that as evidence that the war in Iraq had failed and was already lost -- "is now safe."

During the August 26 special Sunday edition of Countdown on NBC, host Keith Olbermann named syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh the "winner" of his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for claiming that Democratic opponents of the Iraq war have focused on the genocide in Darfur in order to secure a percentage of the black "voting bloc," as Media Matters for America documented. Olbermann stated: "[O]ur winner, in an upset, comedian Rush Limbaugh, explaining that Americans who want to see their sons and daughters, and friends and neighbors, brought home from Iraq alive are actually racists." Olbermann quoted Limbaugh s comments from the August 21 broadcast of the nationally syndicated Rush Limbaugh Show on the purported "reasons" why Democrats "want to get us out of Iraq but can t wait to get us into Darfur." Limbaugh said on that program, "What color is the skin of the people in Darfur? It s black. And who do the Democrats really need to keep voting for them? If they lose a significant percentage of this voting bloc, they re in trouble. ... So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa, you get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Nelson Mandela." Limbaugh frequently appears on Olbermann s "Worst Person" list, as Media Matters has noted (here, here, here, here, here, and here). On August 2, Olbermann awarded Limbaugh the "bronze" for claiming that "Democrats have, quote, aligned themselves with the enemy. The enemy kills more soldiers, their spokesmen here in America are the Democrats. When we kill more of the enemy, the Democrats are silent and they say nothing. But when you have reports of, you know, another IED or a picture of a car on fire, then the Democrats assume the role of media PR spokespeople for Al Qaeda. " On the August 27 show, Olbermann also named Fox News host Bill O Reilly the "runner-up" for, as Media Matters also noted, asserting that "most journalists give money to Democrats," apparently referring to an MSNBC report on journalists political donations. After reading O Reilly s claim, Olbermann responded: "Not really, no. The report said that most journalists who do give money to political groups give that money to Democrats. But the report only found 127 American journalists who had given money to Democrats out of about 100,000. That would be approximately one one-tenth of one percent, Billy, as opposed to, say, most." On July 18, Olbermann named O Reilly the "winner" of the "Worst Person" segment for defending his earlier comparison of the blog Daily Kos to the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. As Media Matters has documented (here, here, here, and here), Olbermann also frequently names O Reilly in his "Worst Person" segment. From the August 26 special edition of Countdown with Keith Olbermann on NBC: OLBERMANN: Our runner-up, good ol Bill-O. Bill O Reilly of Fixed News, citing a recent investigative report from, of all places, MSNBC.com. He told his cable audience, quote, "We know that journalists, most journalists, give money to Democrats." Not really, no. The report said that most journalists who do give money to political groups give that money to Democrats. But the report only found 127 American journalists who had given money to Democrats out of about 100,000. That would be approximately one one-tenth of one percent, Billy, as opposed to, say, most. But our winner, in an upset, comedian Rush Limbaugh explaining that Americans who want to see their sons and daughters, and friends and neighbors, brought home from Iraq alive are actually racists. "They want to get us out of Iraq but they can t wait to get us into Darfur," comedian explained. "What color is the skin of the people in Darfur," he asked rhetorically. "It s black. And who do the Democrats really need to continue voting for them, if they lose a significant percentage of this voting bloc they re in trouble." Wait, I haven t gotten to the best part yet. "So you go into Darfur," comedian added, "and you go into South Africa, you get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Nelson Mandela." Rush, I hate to break this to you but, most of American divestment in South Africa came while Ronald Reagan -- you might remember him -- while he was the president. And while the first George Bush was the president, they let Mandela out of jail and made the African National Congress legal again. And also, you re nuts. Comedian Rush Limbaugh, today s Worst Person in the World.

On the August 21 broadcast of the nationally syndicated Rush Limbaugh Show, a caller said to host Rush Limbaugh: "I know I m no expert in foreign affairs, but what really confuses me about the liberals is the hypocrisy when they talk about how we have no reason to be in Iraq and helping those people, but yet everybody wants us to go to Darfur." Limbaugh responded by claiming Democrats "want to get us out of Iraq, but they can t wait to get us into Darfur." He continued: "There are two reasons. What color is the skin of the people in Darfur? It s black. And who do the Democrats really need to keep voting for them? If they lose a significant percentage of this voting bloc, they re in trouble." The caller responded, "The black population," to which Limbaugh said, "Right." Limbaugh also stated: "So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa, you get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Nelson Mandela -- who was bankrolled by communists for a time, had the support of certain communist leaders. You go to Ethiopia. You do the same thing." Limbaugh added: "Clinton sent the U.S. military off to Bosnia. No U.S. national interest at stake. The liberals will use the military as a meals on wheels program. They ll send them out to help with tsunami victims. But you put the military -- you put the military in a position of defending U.S. national interest, and that s when Democrats and the liberals oppose it." However, interest in ending the killing in the Darfur region of Sudan is bipartisan. In 2006, Congress passed the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, sponsored by then-Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-IL). The law contained several sanctions on Sudan, including a ban on ships involved in Sudan s oil trade docking at U.S. ports of entry. An initial version of the bill passed the House by a vote of 416-3, and the final version passed the House by voice vote and the Senate by unanimous consent and was signed by the president on October 13, 2006. From the August 22 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks The Rush Limbaugh Show: LIMBAUGH: Here s [caller] in Lake Orion, Michigan. Thank you for calling. Great to have you on the EIB Network. CALLER: Hey, Rush. It s great to talk to you. I talked to you once before. I ve been listening to you for a couple of years now, and I think I m getting brighter, but there s a lot to be learned. I know I m no expert in foreign affairs, but what really confuses me about the liberals is the hypocrisy when they talk about how we have no reason to be in Iraq and helping those people, but yet everybody wants us to go to Darfur. I mean, aren t we going to end up in a quagmire there? I mean, isn t it -- I don t understand. Can you enlighten me on this? LIMBAUGH: Yeah. This is -- you re not going to believe this, but it s very simple. And the sooner you believe it, and the sooner you let this truth permeate the boundaries you have that tell you this is just simply not possible, the better you will understand Democrats in everything. You are right. They want to get us out of Iraq, but they can t wait to get us into Darfur. CALLER: Right. LIMBAUGH: There are two reasons. What color is the skin of the people in Darfur? CALLER: Uh, yeah. LIMBAUGH: It s black. And who do the Democrats really need to keep voting for them? If they lose a significant percentage of this voting bloc, they re in trouble. CALLER: Yes. Yes. The black population. LIMBAUGH: Right. So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa, you get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Nelson Mandela -- who was bankrolled by communists for a time, had the support of certain communist leaders. You go to Ethiopia. You do the same thing. CALLER: It s just -- I can t believe it s really that simple. LIMBAUGH: Well, see, I knew you couldn t believe it. But here s the -- here s one that s even going to be harder to believe and it is even more truthful. Could you tell me what vital national interest, [caller], is at stake in Darfur? CALLER: Um, I don t know. LIMBAUGH: Nothing. Zilch, zero, nada. Darfur is not attacking us. Darfur has not said they want to attack us. So they will -- same thing -- Clinton sent the U.S. military off to Bosnia. No U.S. national interest at stake. The liberals will use the military as a "meals on wheels" program. They ll send them out to help with tsunami victims. But you put the military -- you put the military in a position of defending U.S. national interest, and that s when Democrats and the liberals oppose it. And -- CALLER: Right. Terrorists have attacked us and our oil supply comes from, you know, Iraq and Iran and the Middle East, and yet that s not worth defending. LIMBAUGH: Right. That s exactly right. You ve got it. You ve got it. Now you just have to believe your own instincts from here on out.