ShareThis Page
News Columnists

Knotheads try to tie up Rush

| Sunday, Oct. 14, 2007

The ruckus over Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" statement is dying down. It ought not to. There is a huge story here.

What did Limbaugh say• In a Sept. 26 conversation with a caller to his program who claimed the media never interview "real soldiers," but just people out of the blue, Limbaugh added for emphasis, "the phony soldiers."

The left saw its opportunity and pounced with a vengeance. Led by the George Soros-funded and Hillary Clinton-inspired Media Matters outfit, it unleashed a scorched-earth attack on Limbaugh for insulting the military, stating that any servicemen or women who might oppose the war in Iraq had been defamed by the talk show host as "phony soldiers."

The television networks, newspapers and leftist blog sites were ablaze with stories about Democrats' outrage. There were calls for his show to be yanked from the Armed Forces Radio Network. There were demands that Clear Channel make Limbaugh apologize and that advertisers pull their sponsorship.

Presidential candidates denounced him. Congressional leaders -- the usual crowd of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, etc. -- denounced him. A formal congressional resolution condemning Limbaugh was drawn up by Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., and reportedly had more than 100 Democrat (and one Republican) signers. The message was clear: Limbaugh's anti-military insult could not, and would not, be tolerated.

How disingenuous was this leftist attack on Limbaugh• Let us count the ways.

Before reviewing the facts of the case, one has to shake his head in disbelief that anyone would accuse Limbaugh of an anti-military bias. A day doesn't go by when he isn't praising our military on his radio program. He's visited the troops on the battlefield in Afghanistan and brought comfort to our wounded at the Walter Reed Army hospital. He's raised and donated millions to military charities. It is no wonder that he is the single most popular personality on the Armed Forces Radio Network.

Less than two minutes after uttering the words "phony soldiers," Limbaugh elaborated on the subject, explaining exactly what he meant by the term. He named one Jesse Macbeth as an example of a phony soldier.

Macbeth had become an overnight darling of the far left, a self-described Iraq war veteran and Purple Heart recipient who posted a YouTube video denouncing American military atrocities he'd witnessed.

Except he was never awarded a Purple Heart. He was never in Iraq. In fact, he was never in the military, period. He was tossed out of boot camp after four months. Macbeth is now in prison serving a five-month term for falsifying Army records and applying falsely for veterans' benefits. Limbaugh was right.

Limbaugh also pointed out that he wasn't the first to discuss the Macbeth phony soldier story. Brian Ross had filed a report on this man several nights before on ABC's "World News." Ross even used the term "phony soldier" -- and not a soul on the left found fault with that.

So the left returned with another charge: Limbaugh had used the plural, "phony soldiers," therefore Limbaugh's sole example -- Macbeth -- was inadequate. So are there any other "phony soldiers" out there?

Jeffrey Sullivan, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington, thinks so. Besides prosecuting Macbeth, he's prosecuted another five "phony soldiers." Jim O'Neill, the assistant inspector general for investigations at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, confirms that the federal government is presently conducting another 60 such "stolen valor" cases. Limbaugh was right, in spades.

The left knew Limbaugh was correct, yet, just as with the spurious racist accusations against Bill O'Reilly the week before, the attacks continued for days, unabated. This is no accident and no coincidence. Yesterday, it was Today, it's Media Matters. This is the far left at its repugnant worst, perfectly content to destroy a man's reputation through dishonest attacks if it will further its agenda. Josef Stalin would be proud of this movement.

Limbaugh has beaten them all back now. In fact, as with the Petraeus/"Betray Us" attacks by MoveOn, this newest round of attempted character assassination backfired and did nothing but re-energize conservatives.

But this won't stop the left. Tomorrow it will be Sean Hannity, or Mark Levin, or maybe Laura Ingraham. This group plays for keeps.

And what of all those media outlets giving aid and comfort to the leftists who attacked Limbaugh• Now that we know there are several dozen cases of "phony soldier" scandals, just as Limbaugh suggested, how many stories have they devoted to them, thus vindicating Limbaugh• Check for a Jesse Macbeth story in a database search on CBS, NBC and NPR. Search Time and Newsweek. Look up The Washington Post, The New York Times and USA Today.

You won't find a one.

L. Brent Bozell III is president of the Media Research Center.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me