CNN (the liberal news network) never lets facts get in the way

[Drbio]

CABLE CONTROVERSY: CNN AGREES TO AIR BLOODY ABORTION AD ON JUDGE ROBERTS
Tue Aug 09 2005 19:41:54 ET

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 Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Factcheck.org reviewed the NARAL ad and found it to be “false.”

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 RNC’s letter claims: "NARAL's ad is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts that has no purpose but to mislead the American people."

Developing...




Next up....Mavdookie's spin on how this is actually not a problem.

[dude1394]

Clinton News Network

[Mavdog]

The thread title needs to be changed to say that "CNN and Fox News.."
------------------------------------------------------------
Ad Campaign Says Roberts Backed Violent Protesters
Judge's Allies Defend His Work on Abortion Case

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 9, 2005; A03

A prominent abortion rights group launched a television ad yesterday that accuses Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. of siding with violent extremists and a convicted clinic bomber while serving in the solicitor general's office, an accusation that Roberts's supporters immediately condemned as a flagrant distortion.

The ad, sponsored by NARAL Pro-Choice America, focuses on Roberts's role in a case involving whether a 19th-century anti-Ku Klux Klan statute could be used to shut down blockades of health clinics by abortion protesters. The solicitor general's office filed a friend-of-the-court brief siding with the clinic protesters, including Operation Rescue. The high court ruled 6 to 3 against the health clinics in January 1993.

The NARAL ad, set to begin airing tomorrow on local channels in Maine and Rhode Island and nationally on the CNN and Fox News cable networks, features Emily Lyons, a clinic director who was badly injured when a bomb exploded at her clinic in Birmingham in 1998. The ad ends by urging viewers to call their senators to tell them to oppose the federal appellate judge's confirmation to the Supreme Court.

"Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber," the ad states. The ad concludes by saying, "America can't afford a justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans."

White House spokesman Steve Schmidt denounced the ad. "The NARAL ad is outrageously false, bordering on the slanderous," he said. Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said, "By attempting to assert that Judge Roberts supports shameful criminal acts, NARAL has shown how far they will go to slander a good man for political gain."

The NARAL ad represents a significant escalation in the battle over Roberts's fitness to serve on the court. Up to now it has been marked by relatively polite sparring and a dispute between Senate Democrats and the Bush administration over access to Roberts's writings while in the solicitor general's office during the administration of George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s.

The case came during a period of widespread blockades of abortion clinics, including in the Washington suburbs, and involved figures convicted of anti-clinic violence. The issue before the court in Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic , however, focused more narrowly on whether the anti-discriminatory Ku Klux Klan Act could be applied against abortion protesters.

In his oral argument before the court, Roberts said, according to a transcript of the proceedings, "The United States appears in this case not to defend petitioners' tortious conduct, but to defend the proper interpretation" of the statute.

Roberts's allies said his views on violence were clear from a 1986 White House memo, endorsed by Roberts when he served in the White House counsel's office during the Reagan administration, which said violent abortion protesters should not receive special consideration for presidential pardons. "No matter how lofty or sincerely held the goal, those who resort to violence to achieve it are criminals," the memo said.

NARAL President Nancy Keenan defended the ad but said, "We're not suggesting that Mr. Roberts condones clinic violence."

But she said that the case came during a period of rising harassment, threats and violence against clinics and that, unlike state attorneys general, Roberts and the Justice Department had decided to support groups or individuals with a history of violence. "The groups he sided with were engaged in a horrific campaign of violence," she said.

In another development yesterday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) sent Roberts a letter warning that lawmakers are angry about the Supreme Court's denigration of Congress and by actions that have trimmed congressional powers. He said he plans to question Roberts closely about the issue in next month's hearings.

[dude1394]

Ah must look a little closer there to do the moral equivalence thing there md. There are "local" fox stations buying this lie of an advert but not the national brand.

captainsquarters

UPDATE III and BUMP: Radioblogger has the transcript of my appearance on Hugh Hewitt's show last night. Also, regarding Fox News, I'm hearing that Fox has NOT sold national advertising time to NARAL for this ad, but that individual Fox Broadcasting outlets have done so in a few markets. These broadcast outlets have agreed to air the smear spot, but not their networks:

Bangor
WABI CBS
WLBZ NBC
WVII ABC

Portland
WCSH NBC
WGME CBS
WPFO FOX

Presque Isle
WAGM CBS

Providence
WPRI CBS
WNAC FOX

Notice that NARAL appears to target Maine and Rhode Island. It looks like an attempt to persuade Lincoln Chaffee, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe to abandon Roberts.

[Mavdog]

Here's Factcheck.org writeup on the ad
-----------------------------------------------
NARAL Falsely Accuses Supreme Court Nominee Roberts
Attack ad says he supported an abortion-clinic bomber and excused violence. In fact, Roberts called clinic bombers “criminals” who should be prosecuted fully.

August 9, 2005
Modified: August 9, 2005

Summary

An abortion-rights group is running an attack ad accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers “supporting . . . a convicted clinic bomber” and of having an ideology that “leads him to excuse violence against other Americans” It shows images of a bombed clinic in Birmingham , Alabama .

The ad is false.

And the ad misleads when it says Roberts supported a clinic bomber. It is true that Roberts sided with the bomber and many other defendants in a civil case, but the case didn't deal with bombing at all. Roberts argued that abortion clinics who brought the suit had no right use an 1871 federal anti-discrimination statute against anti-abortion protesters who tried to blockade clinics. Eventually a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court agreed, too. Roberts argued that blockades were already illegal under state law.

The images used in the ad are especially misleading. The pictures are of a clinic bombing that happened nearly seven years after Roberts signed the legal brief in question.


Analysis



NARAL Pro-Choice America released a new ad focusing on John Roberts, President Bush's nominee to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's vacant Supreme Court position, called "Speaking Out," on August 8. NARAL said it plans to buy half a million dollars worth of airtime in coming weeks on national cable networks, as well as well as on networks in Maine and Rhode Island.

The ad shows images of a bombed clinic before a woman identified as Emily Lyons appears on screen, saying "I nearly lost my life." An announcer says, "Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber".The announcer then urges viewers to "call your Senators" and "tell them to oppose John Roberts" because we "can't afford a Justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans."

A False Implication

In words and images, the ad conveys the idea that Roberts took a legal position excusing bombing of abortion clinics, which is false. To the contrary, during the Reagan administration when he was Associate Counsel to the President, Roberts drafted a memo saying abortion-clinic bombers "should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law." In the 1986 memo, Roberts called abortion bombers "criminals" and "misguided individuals," indicating that they would get no special treatment regarding requests for presidential pardons. Reagan in fact gave no pardons to abortion-clinic bombers.

The 1986 draft is on file at the Reagan library. The White House furnished a copy to FactCheck.org. (See "supporting documents" at right.)


Seven Years Earlier

The ad fails to mention that the "court briefs" it mentions are actually from nearly seven years before the abortion clinic bombing talked about in the ad. The woman in the ad, Emily Lyons, was injured by a bomb blast at the New Woman/All Women Health Clinic in Birmingham on January 28, 1998 that also killed an off-duty police officer. The bomber was Eric Rudolph, who was captured in May 2003 after a five-year manhunt. Rudolph pleaded guilty and in July 2005 was sentenced to two consecutive life terms without parole.

The brief that Roberts signed, and on which the NARAL ad is based, is from another matter entirely. It is dated April 11, 1991. Furthermore, it is from a civil lawsuit brought by abortion clinics against protesters who were blockading the clinics. Bombing was not an issue.

Supporting Anti-abortion Groups?

The ad contends that Roberts "filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber." Indeed, Roberts' name appears on the "friend of the court" brief in Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic that the ad shows. But what Roberts was supporting wasn't violence or bombing or even the behavior that was the subject of the lawsuit - blockades of clinics. In fact, Roberts went out of his way to say that the blockaders were trespassing, which is a violation of state law. What Roberts argued was that a federal anti-discrimination law couldn't be used against abortion blockaders because they weren't discriminating against women – they were blockading men, too.

Roberts was serving as Deputy Solicitor General in the administration of George H.W. Bush. He was one of six Justice Department officials who submitted the brief on behalf of the United States government.

The case began as a lawsuit against protestors who hold "antiabortion demonstrations in which participants trespass on, and obstruct general access to" abortion clinics by blocking the entrances and exits. Lawyers for abortion clinics took the position that the protesters conspired to violate the civil rights of women. There was no disagreement that the protestors had committed a state crime by protesting on the private property of clinics. Upon appeal, the question was whether the protestors also violated federal law by intentionally denying women equal protection under the law and prevented them from exercising their constitutional right to interstate travel.

In Roberts' brief, and in oral arguments he made in person before the Supreme Court, the government argued that a particular part of U.S. law (Section 1985(3) of Title 42, which derived from the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871) applied only to conspiracies to deprive people of civil rights due to racial discrimination, not gender discrimination. They also argued that the protestors did "not aim their anti-abortion activities exclusively at women" but "at anyone, whether male or female, who assists or is involved in the abortion process – doctors, nurses, counselors, boyfriends, husbands and family members, staffs, and others." The court, in a 6-3 decision, ultimately agreed with much of the government's argument, saying that "the characteristic that formed the basis of the targeting" for protest "was not womanhood, but the seeking of abortion," which is entirely voluntary. The court also found that the protestors did not engage in a conspiracy to deprive women of their civil rights.

To be sure, anti-abortion protestors saw the court's decision as a victory. It made them subject only to state actions for simple trespassing on the clinic's private property rather than for federal claims involving civil rights violations, at least as long as the protests stayed non-violent and didn't raise charges of assault or inciting to riot. But the ruling and the argument that led to hardly excuses violence, as the NARAL ad falsely claims. Nowhere in Roberts' court brief or oral arguments does he defend or excuse acts of violence.

Guilt by Association

The ad uses the classic tactic of guilt by association, linking Roberts with "violent fringe groups" and a "convicted . . . bomber" because he made the same legal arguments as they did in the case. But, contrary to the ad's message, Roberts didn't argue in favor of them or their actions.

The "fringe group" in question is Operation Rescue, a zealously antiabortion group that had a history of staging confrontational protests around the country, and which the lawsuit was aimed at stopping. Originally led by Randall Terry, Operation Rescue protesters would stand in front of local abortion clinics, sometimes screaming "Mommy, mommy," waving crucifixes, and pleading with pregnant women to turn away. They sometimes pressed against car doors to keep pregnant women from getting out. Hundreds would go limp to make it more difficult for police to clear them away. More than 40,000 people were arrested in these demonstrations over four years.

Although these methods in some ways mirrored the non-violent tactics used earlier by civil-rights activists, some saw Operation Rescue's actions as relying on the threat of violence, at least. In his dissent, Justice Stevens, describes the protests as instances where “the duly constituted authorities are rendered ineffective, and mob violence prevails.” Justice O’Connor, in her own dissent, spoke of "the threat of mob violence" raised by the blockaders.

The ad also links Roberts to a "convicted clinic bomber." That refers to Michael Bray, one of those named in the lawsuit. (His wife's name came first alphabetically, which is why the case is called Bray vs. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic in the first place). Bray himself had been convicted years earlier, in 1985, of conspiracy and possessing unregistered explosive devices in connection to a series of 10 bombings at abortion clinics in Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and Washington D.C. He eventually served just under 4 years in prison. In 1993 he wrote a book titled A Time to Kill , which argues that killing abortion providers is morally justified.

Whatever one thinks of Bray, Terry, or Operation Rescue, it is misleading to say that Roberts supported them. He was not their attorney; the protestors had their own attorney, Jay Alan Sekulow, for that. Roberts argued the government's position.

NARAL would have every right to say that Roberts argued for a legal result with which they disagreed. They could also say accurately that many persons, including three Supreme Court justices, also disagreed and saw a threat of "mob violence" going unchecked because of that position. But it is false to suggest that Roberts supported the actions of "violent" groups or clinic bombers because he argued that a law aimed at the Ku Klux Klan could not be used against those who blockade abortion clinics.

Footnote: Soon after the Supreme Court ruled in the case, Congress passed a new law specifically aimed at the blockaders. The 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances (FACE) act, signed by President Clinton, makes it a federal crime to use force, "threat of force," or "physical obstruction" to injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone "obtaining or providing reproductive health services." That act in part gave rise to state legislatures and court systems creating so-called "buffer zones" that force protestors to stay a certain distance away from health clinics, which the Supreme Court has allowed to stand.

--by Matthew Barge

[Drbio]

Which reiterates exactly what dude posted.

[Drbio]

Which reiterates exactly what dude posted.

[Drbio]

Which reiterates exactly what dude posted.

[dude1394]

Heck even Juan Williams excorciated NARAL for this smear job.

[dude1394]

Heck even Juan Williams excorciated NARAL for this smear job.

[dude1394]

Heck even Juan Williams excorciated NARAL for this smear job.

[dude1394]

From the same captains quarters as above.

UPDATE V and BUMP TO TOP AGAIN: The Media Blog at NRO confirms what I heard this morning -- that Fox did not sell any airtime to NARAL:

A Fox News spokesman just told me, "[NARAL] actually never approached us for a buy. You’ll see a correction in the Washington Post tomorrow." So Fox News will not be running the false ad. However, CNN seems to be supplementing its "this ad is not totally outrageous" defense with a soupçon of "everyone is doing it." Neither defense holds up.

Ken Mehlman appeared on the new Situation Room to blast the advertisement, Media Blog reports. I'll have to double-check the transcripts later, even if Abbi Tatton and Jackie Schechner didn't mention this post (read MB's entire post to see why I say that!).

UPDATE VI: MB@NRO followed up with Dan Balz, who wrote the Washington Post piece. He told MB that his source on the Fox buy was ... NARAL. So much for being a "responsible" group, although the Washington Post certainly is -- Balz promises a correction in tomorrow's edition.

So not only is NARAL smearing Roberts with lies, they seem to be trying to smear FoxNews as well.

[dude1394]

From the same captains quarters as above.

UPDATE V and BUMP TO TOP AGAIN: The Media Blog at NRO confirms what I heard this morning -- that Fox did not sell any airtime to NARAL:

A Fox News spokesman just told me, "[NARAL] actually never approached us for a buy. You’ll see a correction in the Washington Post tomorrow." So Fox News will not be running the false ad. However, CNN seems to be supplementing its "this ad is not totally outrageous" defense with a soupçon of "everyone is doing it." Neither defense holds up.

Ken Mehlman appeared on the new Situation Room to blast the advertisement, Media Blog reports. I'll have to double-check the transcripts later, even if Abbi Tatton and Jackie Schechner didn't mention this post (read MB's entire post to see why I say that!).

UPDATE VI: MB@NRO followed up with Dan Balz, who wrote the Washington Post piece. He told MB that his source on the Fox buy was ... NARAL. So much for being a "responsible" group, although the Washington Post certainly is -- Balz promises a correction in tomorrow's edition.

So not only is NARAL smearing Roberts with lies, they seem to be trying to smear FoxNews as well.

[dude1394]

From the same captains quarters as above.

UPDATE V and BUMP TO TOP AGAIN: The Media Blog at NRO confirms what I heard this morning -- that Fox did not sell any airtime to NARAL:

A Fox News spokesman just told me, "[NARAL] actually never approached us for a buy. You’ll see a correction in the Washington Post tomorrow." So Fox News will not be running the false ad. However, CNN seems to be supplementing its "this ad is not totally outrageous" defense with a soupçon of "everyone is doing it." Neither defense holds up.

Ken Mehlman appeared on the new Situation Room to blast the advertisement, Media Blog reports. I'll have to double-check the transcripts later, even if Abbi Tatton and Jackie Schechner didn't mention this post (read MB's entire post to see why I say that!).

UPDATE VI: MB@NRO followed up with Dan Balz, who wrote the Washington Post piece. He told MB that his source on the Fox buy was ... NARAL. So much for being a "responsible" group, although the Washington Post certainly is -- Balz promises a correction in tomorrow's edition.

So not only is NARAL smearing Roberts with lies, they seem to be trying to smear FoxNews as well.

[dude1394]

And here the washingtonpost...which is a pretty dang fine newspaper imo...corrects the smear job.

Correction to This Article

Because of incorrect information from NARAL Pro-Choice America, an Aug. 9 article incorrectly said that a new television ad attacking Judge John G. Roberts Jr. would air on the Fox News Channel.

[dude1394]

And here the washingtonpost...which is a pretty dang fine newspaper imo...corrects the smear job.

Correction to This Article

Because of incorrect information from NARAL Pro-Choice America, an Aug. 9 article incorrectly said that a new television ad attacking Judge John G. Roberts Jr. would air on the Fox News Channel.

[Drbio]

Neither CNN or Mavdookie ever let a fact get in the way of libidiot spin.

[Drbio]

Neither CNN or Mavdookie ever let a fact get in the way of libidiot spin.

[Drbio]

I'm guessing only mavdookie and other ultraliberals are sad t oread the following......




WASHINGTON (CNN) -- NARAL Pro-Choice America said late Thursday it was pulling a controversial advertisement in which the abortion rights group accused Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of "supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted bomber."

The decision to withdraw the ad came after Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent a scathing letter to the group, calling the 30-second ad "blatantly untrue and unfair."

The bombing shown in the video occurred seven years after Roberts filed a legal brief cited in the ad, according to Annenberg Political Fact Check. The non-profit group added that the brief also dealt with abortion clinics' ability to use an anti-discrimination statute against anti-abortion demonstrators.

In a response to Specter, National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League President Nancy Keenan wrote, "Unfortunately, the debate over that advertisement has become a distraction from the serious discussion we hoped to have with the American public.

"We also regret that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts' record," Keenan said.

She told Specter the group "will continue to educate the public about the threat we firmly believe Mr. Roberts' elevation to the Supreme Court would have on American women's reproductive health and, ultimately, their lives."

The ad is being replaced, Keenan said, by another that "examines Mr. Roberts' record on several points, including his advocacy for overturning Roe v. Wade, his statement questioning the right to privacy, and his arguments against using a federal civil rights law to protect women and their doctors and nurses from those who use blockades and intimidation."

The original ad aired on CNN, which also ran an ad supporting Roberts' candidacy by the Progress for America group. The NARAL ad had criticized Roberts, saying he had "filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted court bomber."

"America can't afford a justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans," the ad said.

Specter, who supports abortion rights, urged the group to cancel the ad because it "unfairly attacks" Roberts.

"In our free society, anyone can speak out as they choose on any subject. I am concerned that the Roberts nomination, or others to follow, may provide an occasion for such advertising to get out of hand," Specter said. "The NARAL television advertisement is blatantly untrue and unfair. ... "

"May I also suggest that the NARAL advertisement is not helpful to the pro-choice cause which I support. When NARAL puts on such an advertisement, in my opinion it undercuts its credibility and injures the pro-choice cause."

President Bush nominated Roberts, a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to fill the Supreme Court seat of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The 50-year-old appears to have wide bipartisan support as he heads toward the confirmation process.

During the Reagan administration, Roberts was a special assistant to Attorney General William French Smith and later served in the White House counsel's office.

In the administration of Bush's father, former President George H.W. Bush, Roberts served as principal deputy to Solicitor General Ted Olson, whose job was to advocate the administration's legal position in court, including before the Supreme Court.

[Drbio]

I'm guessing only mavdookie and other ultraliberals are sad t oread the following......




WASHINGTON (CNN) -- NARAL Pro-Choice America said late Thursday it was pulling a controversial advertisement in which the abortion rights group accused Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of "supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted bomber."

The decision to withdraw the ad came after Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent a scathing letter to the group, calling the 30-second ad "blatantly untrue and unfair."

The bombing shown in the video occurred seven years after Roberts filed a legal brief cited in the ad, according to Annenberg Political Fact Check. The non-profit group added that the brief also dealt with abortion clinics' ability to use an anti-discrimination statute against anti-abortion demonstrators.

In a response to Specter, National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League President Nancy Keenan wrote, "Unfortunately, the debate over that advertisement has become a distraction from the serious discussion we hoped to have with the American public.

"We also regret that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts' record," Keenan said.

She told Specter the group "will continue to educate the public about the threat we firmly believe Mr. Roberts' elevation to the Supreme Court would have on American women's reproductive health and, ultimately, their lives."

The ad is being replaced, Keenan said, by another that "examines Mr. Roberts' record on several points, including his advocacy for overturning Roe v. Wade, his statement questioning the right to privacy, and his arguments against using a federal civil rights law to protect women and their doctors and nurses from those who use blockades and intimidation."

The original ad aired on CNN, which also ran an ad supporting Roberts' candidacy by the Progress for America group. The NARAL ad had criticized Roberts, saying he had "filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted court bomber."

"America can't afford a justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans," the ad said.

Specter, who supports abortion rights, urged the group to cancel the ad because it "unfairly attacks" Roberts.

"In our free society, anyone can speak out as they choose on any subject. I am concerned that the Roberts nomination, or others to follow, may provide an occasion for such advertising to get out of hand," Specter said. "The NARAL television advertisement is blatantly untrue and unfair. ... "

"May I also suggest that the NARAL advertisement is not helpful to the pro-choice cause which I support. When NARAL puts on such an advertisement, in my opinion it undercuts its credibility and injures the pro-choice cause."

President Bush nominated Roberts, a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to fill the Supreme Court seat of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The 50-year-old appears to have wide bipartisan support as he heads toward the confirmation process.

During the Reagan administration, Roberts was a special assistant to Attorney General William French Smith and later served in the White House counsel's office.

In the administration of Bush's father, former President George H.W. Bush, Roberts served as principal deputy to Solicitor General Ted Olson, whose job was to advocate the administration's legal position in court, including before the Supreme Court.