As I have stated, one must read Brock's book to understand the point of his website. It is his belief that there is indeed a vast right wing media conspiracy, which he claims he has knowledge of because he was in fact part of it. He has dedicated himself to exposing this conspiracy, which he says works by establishing falsehood as truth by a rather systematic dissemination of false information into the national media stream, of which Mr.Limbaugh is a decided kingpin. He has become so effective at this effort that the outcry on his very existence has become vitriolic on the right, an odd state against a man who was once one of their own, or perhaps because of it.

And aspersions on you, oh, I cast not. Au contraie! I am attempting to set the foundation of rational argument. The current discussion on Mr. Limbaugh's behavior is rather cut and dried. He has the unfortunate circumstance of going on public record, making him easy fodder for Brock's modus operandi. Rush did in fact offer an edited transcript as, in his words "the entire transcript" of what transpired, a statement that was quite frankly, false. He also claimed his remarks where "out of context". Now, out of context is when I say something like "If for instance, I beat my wife, well then, I would go to prison, so I suffer her nagging instead", from which you would claim I said "I beat my wife". In reading the entire transcript of his remarks, I find nothing of the sort, the context of the remarks was a comment on all soldiers who are guilty of disagreement with the war. Now, Mr. Brock has simply posted these transcriptions and quoted Mr. Limbaugh's shifting statements. He has in fact done us all a service, exposing a public hypocrite and purveyor of falsehood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brock