Ever since Moveon.org made its clumsy and irresponsible attack on General David Petraeus, describing him in ads as "General Betray Us," the cultural left has been looking to paint the right as equally irresponsible. Media Matters, which monitors right-wing talk radio, believes it has found the evidence right out of the horse's mouth. The horse, in this case, is Rush Limbaugh. Apparently some in Congress are even considering a resolution to condemn Limbaugh.

I've carefully reviewed the transcript of Limbaugh's September 26 program, as provided by Media Matters. I invite you to read it for yourself. What it shows is that Limbaugh is indeed guilty of simplistic argument and dismissive bravado. But he's not guilty of smearing troops who happen to oppose the Iraq war as unpatriotic. This is the heart of the Media Matters accusation, and it implodes upon scrutiny.

I'd like to say, in the manner of sports broadcasters, "Let's go to the videotape." Here let's examine the transcript. First a caller named "Mike in Chicago" says, "Well, I'm 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--well, sometimes you've got to cut the losses." To which Rush should have said, "But you're not in Iraq, Mike, so how do you know it's not winnable? Can you possibly make that decision from your front porch in Chicago?" Instead Rush said, "Mike, you can't possibly be a Republican," and then followed that up with, "Cause you sound just like a Democrat." The caller persists, "I used to be military, okay? And I'm a Republican." Still, Rush refuses to believe the guy. Here Rush's skepticism is entirely pigheaded. Clearly there are Republicans who don't agree with Bush's Iraq policy, just s there are Democrats who do.

The next caller, another Mike but this time from Olympia, Washington, informs Rush that as a 14 year active duty army officer he supports Bush. Then he says of the left, "What's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers out that come up out of the blue and talk to the media." Rush responds, "The phony soldiers." The caller adds, "If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve." Now clearly the caller thinks that all real soldiers support the war, and this is clearly untrue. Surveys show high degrees of military support for Bush, especially among those who have served in Iraq, but even if 75 percent of the troops supports Bush, that still means 25 percent do not.

Who was Rush referring to when he made the reference to "phony soldiers"? Did he mean all soldiers who oppose the Iraq war? The context leaves this ambiguous. But later in the show Rush clarified. He gave an example of a phony soldier who reported atrocities in Iraq until it emerged that the fellow was never in Iraq. There have been several other cases of phony information attributed to military sources. The New Republic printed horror stories from Iraq penned by a pseudonymous writer identified as "Scott Thomas." Turns out his full name is "Scott Thomas Beauchamp" and that much of what he said is either exaggerated or fabricated. When Beauchamp's fellow soldiers protested that the events he described simply could not have happened, the New Republic launched its own investigation, still ongoing.

Media Matters writes that "Limbaugh boldly stated that any troops who call for a withdrawal of troops in Iraq are 'phony soldiers.'" Actually, this is flatly untrue. Rush did not say this, boldly or otherwise. It is Media Matters that is stretching the facts with the obvious goal of smearing Limbaugh and covering up for Moveon.org. I'm not sure why Congressmen get involved in this kind of thing, but if Congress passes a resolution condemning anyone, it should be Media Matters and not Rush Limbaugh.