I have the audio files that I personally downloaded from RushLimbaugh.com on September 26, 2007 before this whole Phony "Phony Soldier" story was put up on Media Matters. So if they were edited, then Rush had to be clairvoyant because the story hadn't even broke. So as a baseline, here is what I found there:

$ md5sum *26*
cf7ae77d17170a5c37f4604abc7fae48 *Rush Limbaugh - Sep 26 2007 - Hour 1.mp3
032a269c9dd448f007c4f763c68377ec *Rush Limbaugh - Sep 26 2007 - Hour 2.mp3
b566da5848ddd0b777be1cc42790ae76 *Rush Limbaugh - Sep 26 2007 - Hour 3.mp3

I then cleared my IE cache and redownloaded the same files just now. Here is what I got:

$ md5sum *26*
cf7ae77d17170a5c37f4604abc7fae48 *Rush Limbaugh - Sep 26 2007 - Hour 1.mp3
032a269c9dd448f007c4f763c68377ec *Rush Limbaugh - Sep 26 2007 - Hour 2.mp3
b566da5848ddd0b777be1cc42790ae76 *Rush Limbaugh - Sep 26 2007 - Hour 3.mp3

So, upon close examination the original audio files for that day have not been altered, edited, or mopped up in any way.

The audio for the clips in question are in Hour 2. I then personally reviewed the audio again taking careful note of the timestamps within that file. Here is what I found:

So, the charge of editing must be concerned with his audio for September 28, 2007. Upon examining the Media Matters story found here (as it existed at 2:49PM Eastern Time on September 29, 2007) their claim that Rush's audio recap had edited out a portion of the September 26 exchange is correct, and the content of the information edited out was also accurate and is being reproduced here to prevent tampering:

RUSH:
They joined to be in Iraq.

[begin
Limbaugh edit]

CALLER:
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:
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 ex-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.

[end
Limbaugh edit]

RUSH:
It's frustrating and maddening, and why they must be kept in the minority. I
want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very
much.

So, given this evidence the only thing that I can conclude is that both Media Matters and Missliberties are trying to falsely leave the impression that Rush had somehow covered something up by editing the audio. As we clearly see, however, the portion that had been edited was unrelated to the issue at hand, and hence is immaterial to the discussion. In other words, the edited portion had no substantive value to the discussion at all.

This hardly bolsters a charge of intentionally covering something up.

So, to summarize the full sequence of events we have the following (timestamps relative to the Hour 2 audio):

Now the interpetations of motives provided in the above scenario are my based on having listened to Rush's show for many years and understanding how he likes to run his program. This should not be considered outlandish by any means to someone who actually listens to the show.

So, while this time Media Matters hasn't committed an outright lie ... like their previous story on this subject did, they are clearly trying to mislead people about Rush's intentions with editing the script for clarity and to save broadcast time.

In the end, however, this is all just a distraction from the primary point that they are intentionally misrepresenting who Rush was referring to with his Phony Soldiers comment. So, I say again just to be clear, it is Media Matters and Missliberties that apply the term Phony Soldiers to any soldier that advocates withdrawal, not Rush Limbaugh.

and you haven't heard of him ...

doesn't mean he isn't exactly what he appears to be, a left wing nut case posing as a soldier to smear the troops. He's clearly not right wing because we have no reason to smear the troops.

Was he a big deal before the "Phony Soldier" flap? Probably not.

The irony here is that nobody would probably know about him today if it wasn't for the Phony Media Matters smear on Rush. That's what catapulted his name everywhere in the first place: people defending Rush. Now he has become a phenomenon and has been successfuly labeled a left wing hero all because of another smear attempt by the left gone wrong.

In a way this is the whole Betray Us thing all over again. MoveOn tried to smear Patraeus and it failed big time and they will have that tag forever. MediaMatters tried to create a left wing version of Betray Us by hyping and lying about what Rush said and asserting that he meant something that he clearly did not. This too backfired miserably which makes it all the more funny.

The best thing the left can do at this point is let them both blow over. If/when they introduce a resolution to condemn Rush over this made up story, that too will backfire. Republicans are never going to support it because the MediaMatters lies are just too obvious.

On Media Matters funding:

• Media Matters for America

The site "was devised as part of a larger media apparatus being built by liberals to combat what they say is the overwhelming influence of conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly ." The "project was developed with help from the newly formed Center for American Progress , the policy group headed by John D. Podesta ," Bill Clinton 's former chief of staff. "Brock said he hoped it could help provide fodder for fledgling liberal radio talk shows being started across the country, including those of the comedians Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo ." [4]

Funding

Funded with "more than $2 million in donations from wealthy liberals." "Among Mr. Brock's donors is Leo Hindery, Jr. , the former cable magnate; Susie Tompkins Buell , who is co-founder of the fashion company Esprit and is close to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, and Ms. Buell's husband Mark; and James C. Hormel , a San Francisco philanthropist whose appointment as ambassador to Luxembourg was delayed for a year and a half in the late 1990's by conservative lawmakers protesting what they called his promotion of a 'gay lifestyle.' [5]

Media Matters for America is funded in part by the Democracy Alliance .

• David Brock Is Buzzing Again

Brock's donors read like a Who's Who of those who have financed the new, activist Left. Besides Buell and Hindery, donors to Media Matters include Peter Lewis, chairman of Progressive Corp., who has contributed more than $7 million to the 527s in partnership with his friend, the financier George Soros. There is Democratic activist Bren Simon, wife of shopping-mall tycoon Mel Simon, New York psychologist and donor Gail Furman, California philanthropist James Hormel, and others. Two anti-Bush organizations, the New Democratic Network and MoveOn.org, have also contributed to Brock's project.

In addition to his donor list, Brock's staff at times resembles that of a political campaign. In the group's K Street offices, there are a number of veterans of Democratic causes. One Brock aide did opposition research for the recent presidential campaign of Sen. John Edwards; another did the same thing for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee; yet another worked on the Wesley Clark presidential campaign; another worked for Massachusetts Democratic representative Barney Frank, and so on.

Four in 10 Republicans still hold this view, compared with 32% of Independents and 27% of Democrats.