| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| CNN to air NARAL lies about Roberts | |
| 2005-08-10 | |
| Via Drudge Report CNN has reviewed and agreed to run a controversial ad produced by a pro-abortion group that falsely accuses Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers supporting a convicted clinic bomber! The news network has agreed to a $125,000 ad buy from NARAL, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, for a commercial which depicts a bombed out 1998 Birmingham, AL abortion clinic. The Birmingham clinic was bombed seven years after Roberts signed the legal briefing. The linking of Roberts to "violent fringe groups" is the sharpest attack against the nominee thus far. However, the non-partisan University of Pennsylvaniaâs Annenberg Factcheck.org reviewed the NARAL ad and found it to be âfalse.â Factcheck.org found "in words and images, the ad conveys the idea that Roberts took a legal position excusing bombing of abortion clinics, which is false." The Republican National Committee is preparing to send a letter to television stations asking them to pull the spot, according to sources. The RNCâs letter claims: "NARAL's ad is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts that has no purpose but to mislead the American people." So, if he doesn't have any skeletons in his closet, make some up. I swear, the left is so pathetic nowdays. CNN and NARAL should be sued out of exsistance for libel, slander, outright fraud, etc.
| |
| Posted by:mmurray821 |
| #6 FactCheck.org has debunked it before it has even aired. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2005-08-10 16:59 |
| #5 Touch'e, Cap'n. That was the point I was trying to make...#1, it was 7 years prior to the bombing, #2, it was for the group, not the individual, and #3 the MSM is hiding some details and the Demos are using this for ammo. I did not realize it was over jurisdiction only. Even if not, the timing's completely off. |
| Posted by: BA 2005-08-10 14:44 |
| #4 BA, this is BS... Roberts' filing pertained to jurisdiction only, meaning that his papers supported state and local laws over federal. It had nothing to do with the antics of Operation Rescue some 7 years later. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-08-10 11:37 |
| #3 Bottomline is that when you work for a lawfirm, sometimes you have to defend unscruplous people. Simply, filing a brief is hardly supporting murder. If this is the Left's litmus test, then half the congressman and sentator's shouldn't be in office. These people know that there is no wind, yet getting angry at the windmill for not turning. |
| Posted by: Poison Reverse 2005-08-10 11:11 |
| #2 From what I understand, Roberts filed papers on behalf of Operation Rescue (anti-abortion group), who do have questionable tactics/teachings. I, as a Christian, wholeheartedly disagree w/ abortion, but I completely disagree with killing in the name of stopping abortions (two wrongs don't make a right). However, as in most stories, timing is everything and he represented this group 7 years prior to this bombing? And, even if he signed it afterwards, he represented the group, not the individual who took their teachings to heart and bombed the place. Much like the imams who preach hatred (akin to Operation Rescue), you still have to hold the suicide bomber HIMSELF responsible for taking that preaching and putting it into practice. No worse than any other defense attorney (Johnnie Cochran anyone) representing his client (except that at the time, no one linked to O.R. had done any violence, as I recall). |
| Posted by: BA 2005-08-10 10:55 |
| #1 Just have Dan Rather break the story instead. Problem solved. |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-08-10 10:55 |