It's unfortunate the media didn't go after the George W Bush abortion story...

[KansDem]

...with the same tenacity as it did the John Edwards extra-marital affair story. We would today be looking back at eight years of a successful Gore presidency.

On CNN's Crossfire on October 20, 2000, Larry Flynt exploded a bombshell: that he has evidence that George W. Bush was "involved in an abortion in Texas" in the early 1970's - when abortions were still illegal.

Here are the details, as reported by Bartcop:

In the winter of 1971 George W. Bush was dating a woman named Robin Lowman (now Robin Garner). Miss Lowman became pregnant by Smirk and he arranged for her to have an abortion - which in the great state of Texas in 1971 was very illegal! Not to mention that George W. is running as a pro-life candidate for the presidency.
The unnamed source of this story, was a friend of Robin Lowman's and the girlfriend of the man who arranged the abortion. His name is Robert Carl Chandler. Chandler is a Bush friend and supporter from way back and he made the arrangements for Miss Lowman's abortion at the Twelve Oaks Hospital in Houston, TX (now the Bayou City Medical Center). The source overheard the call by Mr. Chandler to arrange the abortion and the source visited Robin Lowman at the Twelve Oaks Hospital after the procedure.

The source meanwhile, is afraid of coming forward, saying that she was threatened by Chandler and another Bush friend and supporter named Jim Bath. Bath has longstanding intelligence connections, and played a role in the BCCI scandal. Robin Lowman (now Garner) is married to Jerry Lee Garner who is an FBI agent.

So, that's the story: an illegal back room abortion arranged by the Republican party Presidential candidate who is running on a pro-life ticket.

The CNN Coverup

Amazingly, CNN scrubbed its own story!!!!

This has all the markings of a cover-up by CNN - just like the cover-ups of Bush's many other scandals, from going AWOL, to using illegal drugs, to corruption in Texas government, to lying under oath.

Here is the original transcript that was published by CNN, but has now been scrubbed.

NOVAK: Mr. Flynt, never let it be said that we censor any of our guests here on CROSSFIRE, and you said you wanted to talk about the election. Tell me what you wanted to say.

FLYNT: Well, during the impeachment debacle, we did an investigation which resulted in the resignation of Bob Livingston and others and we have continued this investigation and for eight months we've been looking into George W. Bush's background. And we've found out in the early 1970s he was involved in an abortion in Texas, and I just think that it's sad that the mainstream media, who's aware of this story, won't ask him that question when they were able to ask him the drug question without any proof at all, and we've got all kinds of proof on this issue.

NOVAK: Well, you're...

FLYNT: You know, the guy admitted he was a drunk for 20 years, and if the abortion issue is true then that puts him lower on the morality scale than Bill Clinton.

NOVAK: Mr. Flynt, you said if it's true and you have no proof of that. I gather you are a very strong...

FLYNT: The hell we don't have proof.

NOVAK: Sir, I gather you're a very strong Gore supporter. Is that correct?

FLYNT: I'll vote for the lesser of the two evils. I don't like either one of them.

PRESS: All Right, Larry Flynt, a man who speaks his word, but we remind you they are Larry Flynt's words and not ours. Larry Flynt, thank you very, very much for joining us.

This was followed by an online chat, in which Flynt went into greater detail:

CNN - Mr. Flynt, I would like to know how you plan to protect yourself from a law suit by claiming to have the goods on GWBush.

Flynt: Because we have them and the truth is an absolute defense.

CNN; When and where are you going to publish information about George W. Bush?

Flynt: When I said that we had the proof, I am referring to knowing who the girl was, knowing who the doctor was that pereformed the abortion, evidence from girlfriends of hers at the time, who knew about the romance and the subsequent abortion. The young lady does not want to go public, and without her willingness, we don't feel that we're on solid enough legal ground to go with the story, because should she say it never happened, then we've got a potential libel suit. But we know we have enough evidence that we believe completely. One of the things that interested us was that this abortion took place before Roe Vs. Wade in 1970, which made it a crime at the time. I'd just like the national media to ask him if abortion is okay for him and his family, but not for the rest of America. We're not looking at it as a big issue, we're looking at it as a situation of people not being told the truth. I think the American people have a right to know everything there is to know about someone running for President.

Was George W. Bush "Involved" in an Illegal Abortion??

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. There's no question why they didn't. They only go after liberals and Dems

[Dreamer Tatum]

2. It's too bad there is no photographic and video evidence of that, as there is with Edwards

Otherwise things WOULD be very different.

[Virginia Dare]

10. I guess Edwards didn't pay off as many people as the Bush's did...n/t

[Celebration]

19. Exactly

The GWB story was much more difficult to pin down, because it was not ongoing like the Edwards affair.

[pitohui]

3. yes but you see it's OK when a republican does it

here is our problem in a nutshell, the GOP understands that a man is a man and that normal male biology is not compatible w. monogamy, this is a social construct that is honored in the breach and not the reality

there is very little play put in the press when a republican is caught w. his pants down and it basically has no consequence even when there is some question of mis-use of public funds, as w. poppy bush's girlfriend on taxpayer payroll, or dubya bush's putting jeff gannon in the white house press corps -- the media turns aside and no one cares

however if a democrat does so little as to get a blowjob then it's all hell breaks loose

why? apparently because they know we'll take the bait

it's divide and conquer, democratic voters have a high proportion of women and it's thought the party can be most efficiently destroyed by pandering to this crap and to (some) women's unrealistic romantic illusions about male biology

there is no doubt that * was unfaithful to his wife but there's no "there there," as the GOP panders to a high proportion of redneck type males who aren't surprised by this behavior nor find it newsworthy or worth commenting about

the next time a democrat is caught with his pants down, as long as it's with a consenting adult, why don't we just say "well, good for him, he works hard and deserves a little pleasure" and move on

[PDJane]

4. Or the woman who cried rape..........

And died from a "self-inflicted" gunshot wound........

ETA: for those who don't remember or never saw the article, a woman charged GWB with rape. Although she was a poor candidate for suicide, that's the claim.

[AndreaCG]

5. I agree, but there's a reason why Flynt didn't publish

The woman did not want her name mentioned and Flynt has scruples.

[WillowTree]

16. What scruples?

He mentioned her name, both her maiden and married names, repeatedly in the CNN interview.

[cobalt1999]

6. No, it's unfortunate that the media covered either story.

Titillating journalism instead of real journalism. We need less of it, not more of it.

[KansDem]

8. I agree, except W was running an "anti-pro-choice" campaign.

Whereas, I don't recall Edwards proclaiming that if elected, he'd put a stop to extra-marital affairs.

I think W's story had much more significance...

edited for grammar...

[cobalt1999]

14. I still wouldn't print it.

A politicians personal life doesn't have to mirror their public policies. All we need to know is that he is against abortion rights as a policy. That should determine if we vote for him or not.

[KansDem]

15. Really?

A politicians personal life doesn't have to mirror their public policies.

It's does when that politician is hellbent on removing a right guaranteed by the US Constitution while reserving that right for himself and his family.

It has to do with ethics and hypocrisy.

[cobalt1999]

17. Yes, really.

What's important to me is the fact he's hellbent on removing a right guaranteed by the US Constitution. That's what's important.

Swap it around. If a politician fought like hell publicly to defend abortion rights, but also tried to stop his girlfriend from getting one.

My rights are impacted by their public stance, not their private matters. Therefore, all I need to know when voting is their public position. What they would do personally is irrelevant.

[KansDem]

18. I tried swapping it around.

However, trying to stop his girlfriend from getting one doesn't come anywhere close to trying to take that right away from her.

When you are trying to restrict rights guaranteed by the US Constitution, then you'd better be willing to live within that restriction yourself...

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. Well if Bush wasn't so determined to present himself as pro-life

you would have a point.

[Bozita]

7. Terrific timely post. It belongs on the Greatest Page.

Recommended.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. Proud to be #5

[KansDem]

12. Thanks, proud2Blib...

Should see you tomorrow at Second Saturday! :thumbsup:

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. Our congressman is our speaker

:)

Save me a seat. If I get there early, I will save you a seat.

LOL I am going to need a shoulder to scream into.