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.
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.
INDICT ANDREA MITCHELL!!!
Mitchell and Russert will be witnesses. Russert is a key witness for Fitzgerald. If he is unreliable as a witness his case might be in trouble. You build cases one witness at a time. You also destroy cases one witness at a time.
So why do they have so much power? Why have the bathhouse boys at the NYT run this country for 30 years?
Just to be sure herefrom someone in the knowdo we know for sure she hasn't been taken out of context?
I say this because this is war and we can not afford to be wrong.
I have lost track of this in the hubbub.
If there is ever a trial, can't you just picture THIS on the witness stand?? Some have said that the judge will not allow anything in that would deviate from a narrow defense against narrow charges that Libby made false statements and obstructed justice and committed perjury in certain very specific incidents. I don't know what to expect of the trial judge. But we all know that Fitzgerald hinted darkly that Libby was guilty of lying about some heinous thing even though he did not charge him with the hinted at heinous thing. The press conference was atrocious. But if Libby's attorney can get the necessary elements in to make a true defense, the liberal media will rue the day.
I hate it when journalists discredit everything they've ever said by saying they didn't say what you heard them say. Makes 'em sound like manipulating liars all of the time.
See post 109 by sloth; at the very least, Mitchell is still making misstatements to this day. She claimed on Imus that no one knew about WILSON until Novak's column, but Wilson outed himself in the very column to which Novak was responding.
"A deal that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald cut last year for NBC "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert's testimony may shed light on the emerging White House defense in the Valerie Plame leak case. The agreement between Fitzgerald and NBC avoided a court fight over a subpoena for Russert's testimony about his July 2003 talk with Dick Cheney's top aide, Lewis (Scooter) Libby. The deal was not, as many assumed, for Russert's testimony about what Libby told him: it focused on what Russert told Libby."
I wondered why Fitzgerald believed Russert over Libby. I didn't know that Russert got a deal for his testimony. Seems like Mitchell and Russert are the story here.
"Seems like Mitchell and Russert are the story here."
MM HMM.
Also don't forget about that lying liar Wilson. Methinks he's the real story.
May 2003 Joseph Wilson begins advising the Kerry campaign on foreign policy issues. ( White House expects calls
, USA Today, October 2003).
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.
True, but its hard to believe that despite incessently searching to determine who was behind the Africa stories, he conveniently "forgets" that his boss Cheney told him about Wilson and his wife. He forgets that two people at the CIA (one upper level and the other his briefing agent) both told him the same information. He forgets that the CIA faxed him a written statement concerning the identity of Wilson and the fact that his wife sent him to Africa. He forgot that an Assistant Secretary of State fed him the same information. Then he forgets that he discussed this information in six other meetings including one with Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary, a week prior to the conversation with Russert. Seems awfuly convenient that someone who is supposedly motivated to find out who is behind these stories about the 16 words and Africa, once they found out from numerous credible sources and discussed what to do about it with numerous other people would all of a sudden "forget" everything that had occured in the few weeks before hand. People with memory that bad would not be in top level positions in the White House.
Translation:
"I got my lies mixed up."
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.
Makes sense to me.
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.
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.