Andrea Mitchell: I 'Misspoke' on Plame ID

NewsMax.com ^ | Nov. 10, 2003 | Carl Limbacher

[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.

[jennyjenny]

However, Libby made the "misstatements" to Federal agents and a Federal Grand Jury rather than on a news program. He did so on numerous occasions (not just once) and unlike Rove he did not "correct" his earlier testimony before the grand jury expired.

Or, it could be Libby was telling the truth. Could very well be Mitchell told her boss, Mr. Russart, and Russart did say this to Libby. Mitchell backpedaling here is telling.

[NeonKnight]

I think the actualy videotape, if played at Libby's trial, would create "reasonable doubt"

The only problem is that a judge could easily, and rightfully say that her testimony would be irrelevant to the Libby case. He is being tried for lying under oath and obstructing justice. Whether or not Valeries identity was widely known or not probably will never even enter into his court proceedings. He is not being tried for outing an undercover agent.

[YaYa123]

Bears repeating: "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."

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. 109 posted on 11/10/2005 7:31:16 AM PST by Sloth" _________________________________________________________

Andrea will have to come back on Imus to claim she "misspoke" again today. That's what happens when you get all tangled up in lies. Andrea Mitchell saying "we did not know who the envoy was until the Novak column" is a downright laughable lie. But who will call her on it?

[roses of sharon]

I think this just another example like the WMD info, and the Atta/Iraq/Prague meeting.

If you reread the stories from that period, the official in Prague said on CNN right after 9/11 that their intell showed a meeting, CNN and other papers wrote that the CIA sources told them there was a meeting.

Then when Cheney is asked about it, he says yes that is what intell said, then a CIA source will come out with the opposite, and the MSM will run it as Cheney's lying.

That back-and-forth played out numerous times with numerous intell info.

It is the nature of intell.

No way can the WH play this tit-for-tat game with the CIA and the MSM who want to destroy the Iraq war effort.

So the MSM, instead of being mature and explaining this to the public, instead claim that Bush/Cheney lied.

Its despicable, especially when the MSM KNOWS about the complications of intell, and ignores all the 90's intell as if it never existed.

[pepperhead]

McGruff, I think you're on to something. Rush knew ahead of time the caller was going to name McCain as the Republican senator who leaked to the Washington Post. So the accusation got "out there", which Rush must have intended, without Rush being the one to do it.

It is a trick used by many. Radio and tv hosts do it all the time.

[kcvl]

So Wilson and Mitchell "misspeak" and Scooter Libby lies, is that about right?

That would be exactly right! No one else is allowed to "misspeak" but a bunch of known MSM liars, everyone else doesn't get the same chance to "misspeak". They are called liars by the same people in MSM who seem think the viewers are stupid.

Hey, Andrea, Libby just "misspoke" when he was trying to remember who he talked to and when but you wouldn't allow him the benefit of the doubt so we aren't going to allow you the benefit either. YOU SAID, WHAT YOU SAID. It's on film. Libby's isn't. I thought you brilliant "reporters" were too smart to allow yourselves to "misspeak" but now you are blaming "bloggers" with an agenda. Step aside Mary Mapes, I think you have company. Of course, we know Andrea Mitchell and Mary Mapes don't have agendas. /sarcasm

[Dave S]

The question isn't whether these governmental sources told Libby about Plame, but whether he had previously heard it from reporters or "in the wind," perhaps totally unconnected to the Niger story

No the problem is that Libby specifically said that he learned about Wilson's wife in talking with Tim Russert on a specific day. He has to show that Russert was lying or that he has to come up with other reporters who will testify that they told him. Good luck there.

[jw777]

maybe Libby simply mis-spoke as well.

[Dave S]

Could very well be Mitchell told her boss, Mr. Russart, and Russart did say this to Libby. Mitchell backpedaling here is telling.

[TBP]

Teh context of the transcript as relayed in the NewsMax piece clearly contradicts her claim.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/3/102415.shtml

Read Alan Murray's question and Mitchell's answer very carefully. You can clearly understand that she was not talking about after Novak's column, but before.

Besides, three other witnesses have now come forth to say that Plame's ID was well known before the Novak column. Why didn't Fitzgerald call any of these people?

Oh, that's right, because he's "nonpartisan," so he can't contradict Wilson's version.

[TBP]

Liar, lair, dress on fire.

[fish hawk]

In the words of their own, Larry O'Donnell: "LIAR,LIAR,LIES,LIES, LIAR LIAR LIAR!!!

[TBP]

So...was Mrs. Greenspan lying then, or is she lying now...or both?

Now.

[PogySailor]

The revision of the historical record of the events surrounding the war in Iraq continues right in front of our eyes.

[TBP]

Only a liberal would lie about something they said, even though the something they said had been shown on television and videotaped for the ages. I guess that's because, for liberals, lying has proven to be a very successful strategy. In fact, it's their only strategy.

They don't thinkof it as lying.

For liberals, truth is whatever serves them at the moment, and a lie is whatever doesn't. It's the old Communist credo, "Truth is whatever serves the party."

[rocklobster11]

Here's the transcript of the original interview:

MURRAY: Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?

MITCHELL: 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.

But frankly, I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it.

It's obvious that her answer leaves no wiggle room for the fact that she knew that Plame worked at the CIA prior to the Novak article. She may have learned that Plame was covert from Novak's article, but I'm guessing that Plame didn't learn that she was covert until the Novak article. It's interesting that Plame has avoided all interviews because she didn't want the truth that she was not covert to get out.

[TBP]

I'm wondering just how many lawsuits that Willson has threatened.

Reminds me of Jack Lemmon in the original version of "The Out-of-Towners.": "You're thirteenth on my list to be sued."

[DJ MacWoW]

Andrea Mitchell liar ping

[TBP]

If Media Matters says it, it is ipso facto a presumptive lie. The site is the most lying site on the Internet, run by a self-admitted liar with a political axe to grind. Everything they say should be presumed to be a lie until it can be proven otherwise.

Just like the MSM that they defend.

[caffe]

Yes, I realize this.....but if Libby really fights these charges, Mitchell's testimony would be justified by the defense to perhaps impeach Russerts testimony that he first heard about Valerie's job from Libby. I believe this would have to create reasonable doubt.

I mentioned wishing Drudge would use the Imus interview and then her original quotes ONLY for PR purposes....LOL