Nostrils: The story about me investigating Limbaugh and Hannity is a lie

posted at 8:30 pm on October 10, 2007 by Allahpundit

I warned ye! Didn’t I warn ye? From Waxman’s Oversight Committee website:

On October 8, 2007, the American Spectator printed a fictitious story alleging that Congressman Waxman and the House Oversight Committee were investigating conservative and Republican talk show radio programs.

The American Spectator report is completely false and was written without any documentation or attribution. There is not now nor has there ever been any investigation of this subject. But even though there is no truth to the story, the hoax has been repeated on Fox News (transcript below) and several blogs (Family Research Council, Instapundit, ).

The American Spectator should immediately retract its report and apologize for the confusion its fictitious report has caused. Moreover, anyone concerned about the false reporting should contact the American Spectator at (703)807-2011 to register your views.

AmSpec is standing by its story. Question: If it’s true, why would Waxman deny it? He’s the left’s darling, subpoena-wielding Republican dragonslayer; this sort of thing would only endear him to them more. Maybe he’s leery about spilling the beans on bringing Fairness back ahead of whatever carefully scheduled, gradual rollout the Dems’ strategists have planned? But in that case, why start investigating Rush and Hannity now, even surreptitiously? There’ll be plenty of time for it later.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Why would Waxman Lie? You’re kidding , right? It’s a trick question , right?

bbz123 on October 10, 2007 at 8:32 PM

Well, if Heinrich Wachsmann says it’s a lie, then I have no choice but to believe it.

Game over, man.

Misha I on October 10, 2007 at 8:38 PM

A lefty lie? Say it ain’t so.

CrimsonFisted on October 10, 2007 at 8:39 PM

Wax on, wax off…

eanax on October 10, 2007 at 8:41 PM

Egg on the face of the AmSpec, conservative blogosphere up in arms over nothing, Rush and Sean looking foolish for carrying it … I’d say the crafty leaker’s work is complete, dark laughter in the shadows, hands rubbing together.

laelaps on October 10, 2007 at 8:43 PM

I really think all this hand wringing about the Fairness Doctrine coming back is in vain. The Talk Radio and Blog genies are out of their bottles and not even Nostrildamas can put them back in, no matter how much he and the other Democrats would like to.

Maxx on October 10, 2007 at 8:43 PM

Maxx on October 10, 2007 at 8:43 PM

Agreed. Satellite radio will soon have enough listeners to prosper on ad revenue; go free to subscribers, suck in millions more. Rush and others can bolt.

laelaps on October 10, 2007 at 8:51 PM

Saul Alinsky.

Rules for Radicals – Rule #9

The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself.

Good Lt on October 10, 2007 at 8:56 PM

Waxman not investigating,uum didn’t Liberals last week
say they want to be onboard with spying,like first their
against it,now their for it!

canopfor on October 10, 2007 at 9:07 PM

So, the Left is for “wiretapping” Limbaugh/Hannity/Levine, but not “wiretapping” terrorists?

Those people get more odd by the hour.

SouthernGent on October 10, 2007 at 9:07 PM

Why does he need to bother monitoring those programs when The Pantsuit’s henchpersons at Media Matters is already on the job?

JammieWearingFool on October 10, 2007 at 9:09 PM

The re-link to AP’s aforementioned ‘warning’ brought me onto this post. Wonderful. Warms my heart. A republican with balls, eerrrr… Malkins. Somebody produce these ads. I’ll supply all post-production necessary for HD broadcast distribution.


Hell, if I were in charge, I’d run this ad against Durbin (up for reelection in 2008):

I’m a former Marine who was stationed at Guantanemo, guarding America’s enemies: Al Qaeda terrorists captured on the battlefield.

Dick Durbin call me a Nazi death camp guard, a Gulag guard, and an associate of genocidal killer Pol Pot.

You cannot begin to understand how much it hurts us for a United States Senator to slander us, especially when it is not true. Please vote Republican in November and kick this anti-American, hate-filled man out of the Senate.

Or this one against Hillary:

[Image Sandy Berger being hustled out in handcuffs]
Hillary Clinton has hired a convicted national security criminal to be her national security and foreign policy advisor. Sandy Berger cannot hold a security clearance until after the election. So why did Hillary hire him?

As payback for destroying documents from the national archives that would expose her husband’s corrupt and incompent response to terrorism on his watch.

Electing Hillary Clinton will give Al Qaeda a boost. Vote Republican in 2008.

Or this one:
[Famous image of Bill Clinton wagging his finger]
When Bill Clinton was exposed as having out-of-wedlock sex with Monica Lewinski, Hillary Clinton went on national TV denying it, and calling it a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” even with the full knowledge that it was true.

Does America want to elect a liar like Hillary to high office of President? Vote Republican in November 2008.

The opportunities to tell the TRUTH about Hillary, Durbin, Murtha, and the other Democrats are so many and broad, that the Republicans would have to deliberately hide their heads in the sand to avoid them.

georgej on October 8, 2007 at 4:03 PM

Griz on October 10, 2007 at 9:10 PM

Why does he need to bother monitoring those programs when The Pantsuit’s henchpersons at Media Matters is already on the job?

And Democrats never lie for partisan advantage or power grabbing. Nope. Not them. Never have. Never will.

Never could.

Good Lt on October 10, 2007 at 9:13 PM

was written without any documentation or attribution.

You consider it problematic that a media outlet would do such a thing, Rep. Waxman?

So much for the NYT or WaPo ever running a story again, eh?

major john on October 10, 2007 at 9:16 PM

Griz on October 10, 2007 at 9:10 PM

So what are we waiting for?

We never really hear from patriots like this guy. Why is the right so weak when it comes to promoting, supporting and pushing these guys to the forefront?

Why is the right’s grassroots media machine so pathetically weak, disorganized and lame? I know all about the “top down” model, but it isn’t working anymore. Gotta adapt to survive.

Leftiks cower in their Dickies when they face soldiers who don’t agree with them. This guy should be doing YouTube videos, and every hawk blogger should be pinning these videos to the top of their sites.

Fweh.

Good Lt on October 10, 2007 at 9:17 PM

Time will tell, but I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt.

SouthernDem on October 10, 2007 at 9:19 PM

Why does he need to bother monitoring those programs when The Pantsuit’s henchpersons at Media Matters is already on the job?

JammieWearingFool on October 10, 2007 at 9:09 PM

Because the last I checked, Media Splatters doesn’t have the weight of the federal gubmint behind it.

steveegg on October 10, 2007 at 9:30 PM

As for Nostrils, I have no doubt that (a) he’s having his committee’s staffers gather “evidence”, and (b) he has no plans on using said “evidence” until the summer of 2008 at the earliest, the spring of 2009 at the latest.

steveegg on October 10, 2007 at 9:34 PM

Just for the record, calling him “Nostrils” is kinda mean… even if he is a profoundly ugly man.

frankj on October 10, 2007 at 9:40 PM

Just for the record, calling him “Nostrils” is kinda mean… even if he is a profoundly ugly man.

frankj on October 10, 2007 at 9:40 PM
So what constitutes “outright nasty” ;-)

steveegg on October 10, 2007 at 9:44 PM

Why would he lie now instead of later? Easy. His lips are moving.

Tennman on October 10, 2007 at 9:55 PM

There is not now nor has there ever been any investigation of this subject.

Very HUAC-y sort of formulation, no? Just practicing, Waxman?

smellthecoffee on October 10, 2007 at 10:06 PM

Oversite Committee ……

“The American Spectator should immediately retract its report and apologize for the confusion its fictitious report has caused.”

Hmmmm, Waxmanpig wasn’t nearly as outraged and demanding of The New Republic after their fictitious reporting. Oh, that’s right, TNR was painting our soldiers as the bad guys just like the Donks in congress.

11% approval, heading for the ratings abyss at light speed.

[snort]

fogw on October 10, 2007 at 10:08 PM

Why would Waxman Lie? You’re kidding , right? It’s a trick question, right?

bbz123 on October 10, 2007 at 8:32 PM

Bing, right out of the box! Nicely done.

I always thought that “waxman” was some sort of nasty nickname you guys gave Henry because of his odd nose, but here I think you’re saying that this is his actual name, right? Wow.

Jaibones on October 10, 2007 at 10:17 PM

And AP, I don’t think this is such a cut and dried “lie” or “truth” sort of a deal. A garbage can like Waxman could easily be holding a formal investigation of Limbaugh’s show, using taxpayer funded House staffers, and claim without batting an eye that the very suggestion is absurd. Who knows how these scumbags’ brains work, but I think that’s the deal.

Jaibones on October 10, 2007 at 10:19 PM

Heh.

Waxman…

bofh on October 10, 2007 at 10:40 PM

Now is a lie because Rush had him for breakfast…

Ropera on October 10, 2007 at 10:51 PM

“Nostrils”! Bwahahahaha!!!

ROTFLMAO

kevcad on October 10, 2007 at 10:51 PM

My skin crawls every time I see that freaking weasel.

BallisticBob on October 10, 2007 at 10:54 PM

Waxman’s wife is probably some smokin hot babe.

csdeven on October 10, 2007 at 10:55 PM

Waxman’s wife is probably some smokin hot babe.

csdeven on October 10, 2007 at 10:55 PM

A ‘Miss Piggy’ kind of smoking hot babe?

Griz on October 10, 2007 at 11:00 PM

Henry Waxman’s wife?

Go here.. for real…

http://www.washingtonlife.com/backissues/archives/99nov/ambassadors_ball2.htm

Kokonut on October 10, 2007 at 11:02 PM

Well, she ain’t ugly.

csdeven on October 10, 2007 at 11:06 PM

“Nostrils”

*snort*

CliffHanger on October 10, 2007 at 11:07 PM

Well, she ain’t ugly.

csdeven on October 10, 2007 at 11:06 PM

Then it has to be a nostril fetish.

Helloyawl on October 10, 2007 at 11:16 PM

Here’s what my Rush in a Hurry email says on the topic:

Congressman Henry Waxman has denied that he is investigating talk radio. The American Spectator reported this story, so we have conflicting information. If we use liberal standards here, the seriousness of the charge is such that there should be an official investigation into the allegations that Waxman is conducting an investigation.

If our pal Henry is indeed monitoring the program, we direct him to two stories today in particular: House Democrats have put the Iraq debate on the back burner, because they realize that we are winning. And the very same House Democrats are aiding the enemies of America with their attempts to water down of the terrorist surveillance program.

Buy Danish on October 10, 2007 at 11:43 PM

Dude, get an effen nose job.

spec_ops_mateo on October 10, 2007 at 11:48 PM

Allah, in the unlikely event Waxman ever gets something right, what are you then going to call him — Nostrildamus?

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on October 11, 2007 at 12:16 AM

So far there were only 3 comments to that article, but the first one was downright scary:

At 10:21:22 PM on Wednesday, October 10, 2007, Bob Rahm wrote:

Why isn’t this exactly the same as McCarthyism, threatening enemies with the abuse of government power to thwart protestations of abuse? Waxman is McCarthy, and the war on media conservatives is his pinko witch hunt.

And Allah said:

Question: If it’s true, why would Waxman deny it?

Perhaps this is why (what they hope). If that story is absolutely, positvely completely UNtrue, then the targets will stop talking about it and relax their defenses.

leepro on October 11, 2007 at 2:24 AM

It was fake but accurate.

hadsil on October 11, 2007 at 2:41 AM

ALL HAIL NOSTRILDAMUS!

SilverStar830 on October 11, 2007 at 3:01 AM

AHHH CHOOOOOHHHH

[snif, snif]

Kini on October 11, 2007 at 3:59 AM

I think the Waxman staff disclaimer is best described as a pig in a poke.

T J Green on October 11, 2007 at 4:57 AM

I find it strikingly funny how the number for the American Spectator is provided on Fester’s website. The same is done by watchdog groups, grassroots groups, etc to provide the public with an incentive to take action.

Actually, his statement does sound just like that:

Moreover, anyone concerned about the false reporting should contact the American Spectator at (703)807-2011 to register your views.

Hmmm. Agenda?

madmonkphotog on October 11, 2007 at 5:40 AM

Scenes we’d like to see:

The American Spectator New Republic should immediately retract its report and apologize for the confusion its fictitious report has caused. Moreover, anyone concerned about the false reporting should contact the American Spectator New Republic to register your views.

Feel free to exchange Newsweek (Koran flushing), but change “confusion” to “deaths.”

Too many examples to list here…

saint kansas on October 11, 2007 at 5:44 AM

He may be known for his nostrils, but does anyone besides me think of “The Coneheads” when they look at that bullet dome ?

DoctorDentons on October 11, 2007 at 6:37 AM

“If it’s true, why would Waxman deny it?”

Perhaps it was a trial balloon?

The nutroots are slobbering and drooling all over themselves hoping that it’s true. And if it were just to win over the nutroots, they’d go for it.

But, in the general election in 2008, the nutroots are really the actual numberical minority in the electorate. Waxman and his gang of thugs have to win over the general public.

So, perhaps as an experiment, he released this trial balloon to see if it would fly with the general public.

They found out that middle America didn’t believe it; that middle America correctly saw through the gambit and doesn’t believe Limbaugh was insulting the military (given his near 20 year open support of the military), but was singling out SPECIFIC individuals who WERE phony soldiers.

This denial is nothing but a retraction of a trial balloon. You can bet, however, that if the public believed the Media Matters’s lie, they would be having the hearings tomorrow.

georgej on October 11, 2007 at 6:37 AM

Waxman hands out subpeonas instead of business cards. To think that the bastard isn’t investigating talk radio is absurd. Fact of the matter is he got caught seeking out ways to circumvent that pesky First Amendment and he is backtracking.

highhopes on October 11, 2007 at 8:26 AM

Well, just because Waxman denies it doesn’t mean it’s not true. It depends on what the meaning if “is” is, don’t ya know.

For example, last weekend I watched part of the congressional hearing by Waxman’s committee re: Blackwater. Congressman Darryl Issa (R-CA) asked the head of Blackwater about his sister being a Republican as well as his own political contributions and about his company being labeled as Republican-leaning and said that the Democrats had investigated and alleged all this.

Chairman Waxman chided Rep. Issa for saying this and said he was the only one bringing it up. Then, Rep. Issa revealed that all of the things he asked about had come straight from a document released by Waxman’s own staff.

CP on October 11, 2007 at 9:26 AM

What farm animal, from Animal Farm, doe Waxman remind you of.

He is also a plastic surgeons dream or nightmare depending on their level of experience.

MSGTAS on October 11, 2007 at 9:52 AM

Griz,

Where did you find that comment by the former Marine?

Rightwingsparkle on October 11, 2007 at 11:01 AM

I like how half the comments in this thread are just lame jokes about Henry Waxman’s nostrils.

Really mature and insightful political discussion you got going here.

AJB on October 11, 2007 at 2:22 PM

I like how half the comments in this thread are just lame jokes about Henry Waxman’s nostrils.

Really mature and insightful political discussion you got going here.

AJB on October 11, 2007 at 2:22 PM

Shouldn’t you be posting over at dKos?

doriangrey on October 11, 2007 at 2:27 PM