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.
Yes, she is.
She kept a low profile after Dubya was so supportive of her hubby but I noticed some months ago that she was ratcheting up the criticism of the Bush WH ... about the same time I started to hear about the WH looking for a replacement for her hubby.
They are transparent as glass.
With Sandy Berger.
Journalist are slipping way below the rating of an ambulance chasing lawyer. Utterly and totally disgusting.
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
She must not have gotten an elite "party" invitation, and doesn't want to be left out the rest of the season.
'Who's on First' in real time...
Ok -so who really "misspoke"--Libby or Andrea Mitchell? Maybe Fitz needs to seek prosecution elsewhere?
The reality interpretation of her statement is:
Mitchell whined that internet users forced her to acknowledge her actual statements...
Why pick NOW to start refuting her statements, for 2 years EVERYONE has repeated her claim from that interview, and she has said NOTHING until now????????????????????
I saw that interview, she was chuckling, and MANY being interviewed during this time were all stating that they knew this CIA Dem socialite.
Sickening that these people are in charge of PUBLIC INFORMATION, MOODS, OPINIONS, AND THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA.
Fitzgerald must have had her before the grand jury and she lied through her teeth. Now, she feels the hot breath of Fitzgerald coming after her for perjury. Lets hope he nails her. These D.C. types are a real pain in the posterior. No question why our President spends as much time in Texas as he can.
I have about lost ALL faith in our Justice system....I am not kidding....that's from Judge Ito to now Patrick Fitzgerald....pathetic....the Clintons got by with MURDER and TREASONOUS ACTS and Bush gets crucifed for much of nothing.
I saw that interview, she was chuckling
Which one? 2003 or Hardball?
There has to be a video tape of Mitchell's CNBC interview. We know only FOXNews would show it. But we also know any member of the MSM, even FOXNews anchors, are loathe to embarrrass, or accuse one of their own of doing anything wrong. They just won't do it.
Even yesterday Rush was MSM-ish. He protected John McCain when a caller guessed it was John McCain who leaked the black ops prisons to the media. The big guys, (even Rush), won't risk law suits or even the off chance they might have to issue an apology. (But I bet you, that caller is right!)
Arkansas Alzheimers!!!! LOL!!!!! Hillary was patient "ground zero" and it has spread like wildfire in the Democrat party.
I'm not so sure about that.
Right, Andrea Mitchell, if you lisen to her alot, always takes great care to choose "the right words." She does not speak, say, in the style of Michael Moore or other hysterics. She speaks methodically. I think the actualy videotape, if played at Libby's trial, would create "reasonable doubt"
I say put her under oath and atleast call her before the intelligence committee. Please, get some aggression you whining Republicans!!
When the libs change their story they were misspoken. When a conservative changes they lied.
I'd venture to guess that you are correct. I'm glad Carl put this together. I don't listen to Assmus anymore.....
"Still, despite her admission, Mitchell blamed partisan "bloggers" for distorting her comments:"
I believe "distorting her comments" is liberal code for keeping track, and keeping her accountable.
Nothing irritates a liberal more than to be confronted with the truth, in their own words.
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.