Don’t worry, Andrea. You’ll have a chance to set the record straight right here:
Posted on 11/10/2005 6:32:51 AM PST by Carl/NewsMax
NBC's senior diplomatic correspondent Andrea Mitchell is claiming that her comments have been deliberately distorted in reports covering a 2003 interview where she said Valerie Plame's identity had been "widely known" before her name appeared in a Robert Novak column.
"The fact is that I did not know did not know [Plame's identity] before the Novak column," she told radio host Don Imus on Thursday.
"I said it was widely known that an envoy had gone [to Niger]," she insisted. "I said we did not know who the envoy was until the Novak column."
But the actual exchange in question shows that Mitchell was questioned specifically about Plame's CIA employment, not her envoy husband.
"Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?" she was asked by host Alan Murray in an Oct. 3, 2003 interview on CNBC's "Captial Report."
Mitchell replied: "It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that."
Confronted with her comments Thursday morning, the top NBC reporter insisted: "[The quote] was out of context."
When pressed, a flustered-sounding Mitchell explained: "I - I - I said it was widely known that an envoy had gone - let me try to find the quote. But the fact is what I was trying to say in the rest of that sentence - I said we did not know who the envoy was until the Novak column."
Moments later, however, Mitchell changed her story, saying she was talking about both Plame and Wilson:
"I said that it was widely known that - here's the exact quote - I said that it was widely known that Wilson was an envoy and that his wife worked at the CIA. But I was talking about . . . after the Novak column."
"That was not clear," she finally confessed, before admitting, "I may have misspoken in October 2003 in that interview."
Her acknowledgment prompted Imus to remark: "It took me a minute to get that out of you."
Still, despite her admission, Mitchell blamed partisan "bloggers" for distorting her comments:
"We've got a whole new world of journalism out there where there are people writing blogs where they grab one thing and ignore everything else that I've written and said about this. And it supports their political view."
The full exchange went like this:
IMUS: Apparently on October 3, 2003, you said it was "widely known" that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.
MITCHELL: Well, that was out of context.
IMUS: Oh, it was?
MITCHELL: It was out of context.
IMUS: Isn't that always the case?
MITCHELL: Don't you hate it when that happens? The fact is that I did not know - did not know before - did not know before the Novak column. And it was very clear because I had interviewed Joe Wilson several times, including on "Meet the Press."
And in none of those interviews did any of this come up, on or off camera - I have to tell you. The fact is what I was trying to express was that it was widely known that there was an envoy that I was tasking my producers and my researchers and myself to find out who was this secret envoy.
I did not know. We only knew because of an article in the Washington Post by Walter Pincus, and it was followed by Nicholas Kristof, that someone had known in that period.
IMUS: So you didn't say it was "widely known" that his wife worked at the CIA?
MITCHELL: I - I - I said it was widely known that an envoy had gone - let me try to find the quote. But the fact is what I was trying to say in the rest of that sentence - I said we did not know who the envoy was until the Novak column.
IMUS: Did you mention that Wilson or his wife worked at the CIA?
MITCHELL: Yes.
IMUS: Did you mention . . .
MITCHELL: It was in a long interview on CNBC.
IMUS: No, I understand that. But at any point, in any context, did you say that it was either widely known, not known, or whether it was speculated that his wife worked at the CIA.
MITCHELL: I said that it was widely known that - here's the exact quote - I said that it was widely known that Wilson was an envoy and that his wife worked at the CIA. But I was talking about . . .
IMUS: OK, so you did say that. It took me a minute to get that out of you.
MITCHELL: No, I was talking about after the Novak column. And that was not clear. I may have misspoken in October 2003 in that interview.
IMUS: When was the Novak column?
MITCHELL: The Novak column was on the 14th, July 12th or 14th of '03.
IMUS: So this was well after that?
MITCHELL: Well after that. That's why the confusion. I was trying to express what I knew before the Novak column and there was some confusion in that one interview.
IMUS: Who'd you find it out from? Russert?
MITCHELL: I found it out from Novak.
IMUS: Maybe Russert's lying?
MITCHELL: You know Tim Russert doesn't lie.
IMUS: Which would break little Wyatt Imus's heart, by the way.
MITCHELL: Well, which has not happened. But this is (unintelligible). We've got a whole new world of journalism out there where there are people writing blogs where they grab one thing and ignore everything else that I've written and said about this. And it supports their political view. And . . .
IMUS: Bingo.
MITCHELL: Bingo.
I wish Drudge would put this interview on his site along with the original transcripts and perhaps a video of her interview we could watch. Please Drudge, do it!!!!
Well, Andrea could always use the Hillary Clinton defense:
"I don't recall; I can't remember; My head is J-E-L-L-O"
Everything in print......everything on tape..........none of it was ever really said.
I am absolutely convinced that one has to be amoral to be a leftist. If you had any foundation of morality at all.........even scant..........you couldn't lie like this, and they're all doing it.
I see that Andrea is using the Mapes Defence; that is: "Blame the Bloggers".
How long thill Andrea starts blaming Free Republic as well?
She'd borrow Hillary's "faulty" memory. "I can't recall".
What would have been the point of Mitchell saying in the 2003 interview that "it was widely known" that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA . . . . only after Novak's column appeared? That would be stating the obvious, and would have sounded stupid and pointless. That's not how the interview reads. She was obviously lying this morning on Imus.
I love it when FReepers preface their remarks with a good story. And you seem to have a lot of them. God, bless you!
Someone recently reminded me that journalism - despite the pretensions of the MSM media - is NOT a profession like law, medicine, or engineering, requiring years of specialized training. No, the typical MSM journalist probably has a college degree, but probably a BA like millions of other people, not specialized training. So when they talk about bloggers as being unqualified, or comparable to someone practicing medicine without a license, it is just hot air. A typical blogger is every bit as qualified to pontificate on events as are the MSM.
Nonsense. If not before, Wilson outed himself as the envoy in his New York Times column on July 6, 2003, which was obviously before the response by Novak.
Don’t worry, Andrea. You’ll have a chance to set the record straight right here:
I guess Andrea is a liar too?
I would pay to see that deposition. At this point I would hate to be in Mitchell's or any other reporters shoes. Depositions are never a pleasant experience. Libby's team is going to be going after them hard.
She never testified.
Mitchell has described the dinosaur press to a "tee" with this one. Reputable blogs are very effective at cross-checking between themselves, do not hide their identities nor quote "unnamed sources".
It's scaring the beejeeminies out of the lamestream press.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.