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.
pro·jec·tion (pr-jkshn) The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.
Everything in print......everything on tape..........none of it was ever really said.
Yogi Berra: "I didn't really say all the things I said."
Chico Marx (dressed as Groucho at the time): "Who youo gonna believe? Me or your own eyes?"
I'm convinced that their immorality is why they are leftist in the first place.
Cordially,
<sigh...>
GOP: Great Opportunity Perished.
What was the date of the Novak column?
If Wilson outed himself as the envoy and people like General Vallely, Cliff May, and others knew that Wilson was married to Plame, how hard was it to put two and two together?
Watching Libby's lawyers destroy several paragons of the mainstream media would be fun. Do you think they actually hve the cajones to do it?
She not only admitted Plame being widely known on the Capital Report at CNBC, she made the same comment on the weekly talking head roundtable that she corresponds for...I forget which one, but I specifically recall her making the same exact comment re: Plame.
I remember because I looked at my wife that Sunday morning and said, "this will be no big deal because, Mitchell claims that all the Wash. insiders know who she is, so she is probably just a source analyst at CIA.
Many others in Wash. know about her too, according to Mitchell, but surprise surprise, nobody has admitted this with Republicans under fire.
If Mitchell is this duplicitous and political (no big event as a member of the lamestream mediia) but it makes you wonder about the close relationship she has with Mr. (I love to raise interest rates)...I used to think he was just protecting old money, but maybe it's more political(
"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"
Like saying Plame was covert when she wasn't?
When was the Vanity Fair cover?
And yet Starr's biggest impropriety protected the Clintons. One of his key witnesses told him she could link the Clintons directly to Filegate and Chinagate and Starr simply ignored the evidence of any of that in order to focus on the sex, the single charge that Bill was most likely to be able to escape.
May 6, 2003 – A New York Times columnist writes the first account of Wilson' s trip, but not naming him: “I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger . In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong.” (" Missing In Action: Truth, ” New York Times, Op-ed, May 2003).
Duh! Would not be too hard for Andrea and her crowd to check out former U.S. ambassadors to Africa.
So he had signed on as a Kerry advisor BEFORE the article. Interesting.
Yeh, but Cooper is even Sharper! He called Rove on the 11th.....before Novak's article came out. He's telepathic. He sure has it over Mitchell the earthling.
Mitchell doesn't want to be called as a witness and is willing to lie now to get out of being called.
I have been through it a couple times. It isn't fun for sure. At times I felt like jumping across the table and wringing the lawyers neck.
She must be in trouble....hahahah
She's a liar:
OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today
"And this is an exchange between host Alan Murray and guest Andrea Mitchell on CNBC's now-defunct "Capital Report," Oct. 3, 2003 (transcript not available publicly online):
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."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007488
Drudge is a clearing house and a feeder for the press. The blue dress was long ago.
Yes, congratulations, you have officially passed the MSM vocabulary test: in all cases, liberals are just misunderstood and Bush lied...
Next week's lesson: There are no terrorists - there are only oppressed, dispossessed, justifiably-American-hating insurgents...
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.