In an October 12 editorial, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette attacked retired Gen. Wesley Clark for “wading into the muddy thick” of the controversy surrounding Rush Limbaugh's characterization -- made on the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show and noted by Media Matters for America -- of service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as “phony soldiers.” The editorial argued that Clark had “adopted” Limbaugh's “vociferous style” and made Limbaugh “look dignified,” adding that it reduced Clark to “just another fourth-rate polemicist.” The editorial argued that Clark had “adopted” Limbaugh's “vociferous style,” and made Limbaugh “look dignified,” adding that it reduced Clark to “just another fourth-rate polemicist.” However, in attacking Clark, the Democrat-Gazette also misrepresented the context of Limbaugh's remarks and the controversy that ensued.

The editorial was later posted on TownHall.com October 15 under columnist Paul Greenberg's byline. Greenberg is the editorial page editor of the Democrat-Gazette.

The editorial falsely suggested that Limbaugh had, on the same day that he made his controversial comment, discussed Jesse MacBeth before making his “phony soldiers” remark. MacBeth 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. Further, the editorial did not note that Limbaugh: made inconsistent claims about what he meant by his comment; spliced the audio of his original remarks without disclosing his editing; expanded his list of “phony soldiers” to include Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA); and stated that wounded Iraq veteran Brian McGough, who appeared in an ad criticizing Limbaugh's comments, was “pumped ... full of” lies by those who “strap[ed] 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.”

The editorial (as reproduced on Townhall.com) described the controversy as follows:

Rush Limbaugh's style may be the essence of vulgarity, but even the vulgar can be smeared. It happened this way: On his Morning Update, a kind of daily communique for true believers, Mr. Limbaugh had gone after one Jesse MacBeth, one of those celebrated anti-war soldiers who turned out to be anti-factual. (It's a wonder The New Republic didn't sign him up as a regular contributor, a la its fact-challenged Scott Thomas Beauchamp.)

But leave it to El Rushbo to tell the story in his own imitable style: “Recently Jesse MacBeth, the poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. He was sentenced to five months in jail (and) three years' probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim; his Army discharge record, too. Yes, Jesse MacBeth was in the Army. Briefly. Fourty-four days. Before he washed out of boot camp. MacBeth 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.”

One of Rush's dittoheads soon called in to complain that the Biased Media “never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and sound off to the media.” That's when The Mouth of the Right blurted out -- “the phony soldiers.”

Uh oh. An anti-war group, Media Matters, seized upon that plural like a bird of prey on a shiny jewel, and used it to contend that Mr. Limbaugh had smeared “service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.” Whereupon the Rush said it was clear he was referring only to Jesse MacBeth and his like.

Well, it wasn't clear to Media Matters. The left was shocked -- shocked! This is how the rhetorical game is played. The point isn't to debate principles or policies but to play Gotcha.

However, in its assertion about what “happened,” the editorial falsely suggested that Limbaugh's “Morning Update” about MacBeth occurred on the same day that "[o]ne of Rush's dittoheads ... called in to complain that the Biased Media 'never talk to real soldiers'. " In fact, as Media Matters has documented, Limbaugh's “Morning Update” discussing MacBeth aired on September 25, the day before a caller stated that "[t]hey like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media." As Media Matters documented, Limbaugh did not mention MacBeth on his September 26 broadcast until 1 minute, 50 seconds after making his “phony soldiers” comment.

Moreover, in asserting that Limbaugh claimed “it was clear he was referring only to the likes of Jesse MacBeth” in response to Media Matters' original item, the editorial ignored Limbaugh's inconsistencies in explaining his comment. First, on September 28, Limbaugh claimed that rather than speaking generally of soldiers who support withdrawal, he was “talking about one soldier with that 'phony soldier' comment.” Later in the program, he asserted, "[E]verybody involved in this knows full well I was talking about one genuine, convicted, lying, fake soldier," referring to MacBeth. During the same broadcast, a caller asked, “But you did say 'soldiers' in plural, though, didn't you?” Limbaugh replied: “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.”

Limbaugh repeated this explanation on his October 2 program, describing MacBeth as “the man I was referring to and others like him as 'phony soldiers.' ” However, this explanation is inconsistent with his earlier statements from the September 28 show that he had been talking about “one soldier.” Indeed, the transcript (subscription required) of the September 28 broadcast that is posted on Limbaugh's website shows him asserting: “I was talking about one soldier with that phony soldier comment, Jesse MacBeth [emphasis in original].”

Additionally, on September 28, Limbaugh purported to air the “entire” September 26 segment in which he referred to “phony soldiers” to prove that "Media Matters ... selectively choose[s] what they want to make their point." In fact, 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 “phony soldiers” comment and his reference to MacBeth. Prior to airing the edited clip, Limbaugh said: “Here is, it runs about 3 minutes and 13 seconds, the entire transcript, in context, that led to this so-called controversy.” Limbaugh stated afterward: “That was the transcript from yesterday's program, talking about one phony soldier. The truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose, which is exactly the way the website Media Matters generated this story.”

Limbaugh also later expanded his list of “phony soldiers” to include Murtha, stating:

LIMBAUGH: 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?

On October 2, Limbaugh responded to an advertisement by VoteVets.org, in which McGough tells Limbaugh, “Until you have the guts to call me a 'phony soldier' to my face, stop telling lies about my service.” Limbaugh said of the ad: "[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." Several media outlets noted Limbaugh's comments, reporting that Limbaugh compared or likened McGough to a suicide bomber, including the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and ABCNews.com. Further, FoxNews.com reported that “Limbaugh decried the ad by the group that he linked to MoveOn.org, figuratively saying VoteVets is treating McGough like a suicide bomber.”

On his October 4 radio show, Limbaugh asserted that he “didn't call” McGough “a suicide bomber,” and said he was “grateful” for McGough's service.

The entirety of the October 12 editorial is reprinted below, as it appeared on Townhall.com on October 15:

Some of us can vaguely remember a time when Wesley Clark was going to be the next Eisenhower -- a general above the fray, a former supreme commander of NATO who had met the great challenges of his time, someone who would Bring Us Together, lift the tone of national politics, a champion of unity above the usual divisive politics, The Nation's Hope, and all the rest of the nominating speech.

But that was long ago in another country, and, besides, that Wesley Clark is no more -- if he was ever real. His appeal as a presidential candidate peaked the moment he announced back in 2003, if not before, and it steadily deteriorated with every roundhouse swing he took and missed. Sad.

The general's big mistake? Instead of proving a different kind of candidate, he became just another partisan of the louder, less enduring sort. Instead of remaining above the fray, he waded into the muddy thick of it. Instead of bringing us together, he seemed intent on driving us further apart. Soon his was just one more rasping voice in the off-key chorus of presidential also-rans.

Now he's down there among the Michael Moore/Bill O'Reilly bottom-feeders. Impervious to the lessons of his last failed campaign, General Clark is now fighting it out in a kind of two-falls-out-of-three exhibition match against Rush Limbaugh. That's right: El Rushbo himself, The Mouth, the idol of the dittoheads; in short, the very personification of high-decibel, low-fact talk radio.

Not only is General Clark taking the Rush on, he's adopted The Mouth's vociferous style. Maybe it'll get him a job in the next Clinton administration -- the kind of slot reserved for the hacks who do the dirty work in a presidential campaign.

Rush Limbaugh's style may be the essence of vulgarity, but even the vulgar can be smeared. It happened this way: On his Morning Update, a kind of daily communique for true believers, Mr. Limbaugh had gone after one Jesse MacBeth, one of those celebrated anti-war soldiers who turned out to be anti-factual. (It's a wonder The New Republic didn't sign him up as a regular contributor, a la its fact-challenged Scott Thomas Beauchamp.)

But leave it to El Rushbo to tell the story in his own imitable style: “Recently Jesse MacBeth, the poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. He was sentenced to five months in jail (and) three years' probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim; his Army discharge record, too. Yes, Jesse MacBeth was in the Army. Briefly. Fourty-four days. Before he washed out of boot camp. MacBeth 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.”

One of Rush's dittoheads soon called in to complain that the Biased Media “never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and sound off to the media.” That's when The Mouth of the Right blurted out -- “the phony soldiers.”

Uh oh. An anti-war group, Media Matters, seized upon that plural like a bird of prey on a shiny jewel, and used it to contend that Mr. Limbaugh had smeared “service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.” Whereupon the Rush said it was clear he was referring only to Jesse MacBeth and his like.

Well, it wasn't clear to Media Matters. The left was shocked -- shocked! This is how the rhetorical game is played. The point isn't to debate principles or policies but to play Gotcha.

Besides, the Dems in the Senate needed a cause to get outraged over after MoveOn.org - the GOP's best foil -- had embarrassed them by its attack on General Petraeus/Betray-Us. The backlash had hurt.

Soon enough, Wesley Clark was claiming that Rush Limbaugh had “labeled any American soldier who supports an end to the war in Iraq as 'phony.' ” Any soldier. Goodness. Talk about word games, even the president and commander-in-chief could be said to support “an end to the war in Iraq” -- if on his own victorious terms.

And now General Clark's own Web site, WesPac, its logo ablaze with four stars, is asking folks to ban Rush from Armed Forces Radio: “Click here to hold Rush Limbaugh accountable for his offensive and outrageous comments - tell your members of Congress to take Rush off Armed Forces radio today!” (bold in original).

The bold-faced and underlined type pretty well sums up the tone of General Clark's appeal: cheap but flashy. The general's rhetorical style is but a print version of Rush's own deep-throated roar over the air. And the “principle” he's asserting in this rhetorical rasslin' match is the oldest and unfairest: If you can't beat 'em, shut 'em up.

How's that for a lesson in freedom of speech and The American Way? In the event there's any doubt about what General Clark is up to, his Web site carries a less than flattering picture of El Rushbo -- complete with stogie -- imprinted with the demand: DUMP RUSH. The whole Web site is the mod, Internetted equivalent of the old, cheaply mimeographed hand-outs, replete with all-caps and exclamation points, that used to be popular only in the lower reaches of American sub-politics. It looks the way Rush Limbaugh sounds.

And so the muddy battle of quote, counter-quote, and counter-counter-quote rages on - to diminishing interest. It's hard now to recall that better time when Wesley Clark was going to restore dignity to American politics, not destroy what's left of it. But once the political bug hits, it can rage out of control even in generals. Maybe especially in generals. But who says Wesley Clark can't accomplish the impossible? He's made Rush Limbaugh -- Rush Limbaugh! -- look dignified.

Who's right and who's wrong in this screeching catfight? Answer: Does it matter? A better question would be: Who has followed his code? Rush is, was, and surely will remain a tabloid type with a capital T. He has stayed true to his loud calling. What disappoints about Wesley Clark is that he has not acted as the officer and gentleman he is, but as just another fourth-rate polemicist. How the mighty have fallen. Yes, sad.