Posted on 01/05/2006 12:43:20 PM PST by summer
It gets curiouser and curiouser.
As we noted Wednesday, [a liberal site] noticed an odd moment in Andrea Mitchell's interview this week with New York Times reporter James Risen: While interviewing Risen about his new book and revelations that George W. Bush authorized warrantless spying on American citizens, Mitchell asked Risen if he had any information suggesting that CNN's international correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, "might have been eavesdropped upon." Risen said he didn't. But as [the liberal site] surmised, the question certainly suggested that Mitchell did.
Right about the time the [liberal site's] theory started floating through the blogosphere, somebody deleted Mitchell's question and Risen's answer from the transcript posted on MSNBC's Web site. We said we'd like to hear an explanation, and TVNewser actually went to the trouble of getting one. "Unfortunately this transcript was released prematurely," reads a statement TVNewser says it got from NBC. "It was a topic on which we had not completed our reporting, and it was not broadcast on 'NBC Nightly News' nor on any other NBC News program. We removed that section of the transcript so that we may further continue our inquiry."
Assuming the statement is legitimate, that sure seems to us like a long way of saying, "Yeah, we're looking into the possibility that the Bush administration was eavesdropping on Christiane Amanpour."
Now, it's probably time for a deep breath and some patience here. What we've got here is some reading between the lines, and it's about a question, not an answer. But as we said yesterday, if the answer is ultimately answered in the affirmative -- that is, if the Bush administration has indeed been listening in on Amanpour's phone -- the implications are enormous. We don't much like the idea that the government might be listening in on the conversations of a reporter. And Amanpour isn't just any reporter: She is married to Jamie Rubin, a State Department spokesman under Bill Clinton and a foreign policy advisor to John Kerry's presidential campaign. If the Bush administration was listening in on Amanpour's phone, was it listening when she talked with her husband? Was it listening when he might have used her phone himself?
Again, what we've got here are hints about a question. We're a long way from an answer. But when you start circumventing Congress and the courts and begin to spy on Americans in a way that you insist you aren't, you invite questions like these. And along the way, you invite people to think about the last time some people who worked for a president tried to spy on the opposition.
>>
"The Chappaqua Cheeks Are Spreading!"
<<
I am about to lose my lunch.
Didn't James Bond use that one in "Dr. No"?
The Chappaqua Cheeks are a legendary monster, sitting their way across America, crushing anything paid for with earned dollars, leaving only objects purchased with Food Stamps and welfare checks standing. CONSIDERED VERY DANGEROUS!
DU's in a later over these quotes...and Safire having been bugged? I'll have to do a FR search, I just don't remember hearing this.
placemark
More straw grasping. You'd think by know the left's hands would be full.
I think the idea that Armanpour's phone was tapped by the government is ridiculous, but I'll bet the author didn't consider the obvious implication: that that number would have been connected to Al Qaeda.
Hey, this fantasy accusation game sounds like fun. I wanna play too.
Like, um, I won the Power Ball lottery for $100 million just last week, but the DNC sent an agent to my home and stole the winning ticket.
Think I can get an investigation?
You must really be good at ignoring your detractors to see me as the sole voice against your view on this thread.
I agree. I wouldn't trust her any further than I could throw her.
I couldn't care less if everyone or no one was against my point of view.
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.