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.
I was also watching this and it went down exactly as you stated. I also thought at the time she looked pretty smug as she was speaking.
Miller's clearance status is the subject of much debate:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/12501
There are numerous Clinton Adminidtration officials who probably knew that Valerie was CIA. One of them would be Bubba....since Joe went to Niger in 1999 courtesy of the Clinton Administration AND via Valerie's recommendation. Joe's "nobody knew" is absurd.
Mandy Grunwald should be questioned also.
Judith Miller is on Larry King now - saying she is now against the use of special prosecutors. LOL!
too bad she doesn't tell us the real reason she was in jail for 85 days.
Let's see what she says under oath.
you can bet that all of these media people are getting together with their lawyers and scripting this thing like an episode of the West Wing.
I guess she 'misspoke' again and said the same, damn thing.
Shameless lying bitch. She is going to let Libby, and his wife, and his children go through hell, loose millions of dollars in defending himself, all of which could be averted, if she would see Fitzgerald or his investigator and the the TRUTH. These people are incredulous. There is no truth in them.
I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but I would go tell the special prosecutor the truth if it would save even someone like Dashell or Harry Reid, from what is going to befall Libby. Hell, even if his is totally exonerated, he just pissed millions down a rat hole,...all because the liberal press, Andrea Mitchell, are go****mn liars and have not the truth of a fruitfly in their soulless corpse of a wrinkled body. I hope God gives them what they deserve. All they have to do is tell the TRUTH. Spare someone who they know is innocent from the hell which is being meeted out and will be for the next 2 or so years. G*****mn liars.
Absolutely right. I watched that show on Chrissy and she made the statement that everyone knew Plame was CIA and it was before the indictments.
I have googled till my fingers are sore and can't find it. I even read transcripts of Hardball but they don't have that one up, not that I can find anyway.
Well you certainly couldn't tell that from Fitz's press conference. If I were an atty for Libby, I would run some of that press conference and charge inflammatory accusations without cause, false inuendos, and trial without due process. As you can tell, I am not an atty. LOL
"I was also watching this and it went down exactly as you stated. I also thought at the time she looked pretty smug as she was speaking."
Like I said, Mitchell saw what happened to Judith Miller, so she is not going to help out Scooter Libby.
"I even read transcripts of Hardball but they don't have that one up,"
Maybe Hardball intentionally took that one down.
Mitchell: Hummah na, hummah na, hummah na . . . wait a minute . . . what I meant to say, when I said what I said, was not intended to actually mean what it sounded like I meant when I said the actual words I spoke, especially after you read outloud my actual comments from 2003, and even though they sounded like they contradicted what Tim Russert said when he said whatever I think he said to the prosecutor, quite a bit later, and even if it was somewhat different from the words he said or didn't say to Scooter Libby, despite the fact that although I wasn't there to hear whatever he said to anyone, I just know he didn't say anything different that what he has already said, because Libby has to be guilty doesn't he, and so even though what I said sounded like I said something other than the actual words I said would sound like I meant, when I said what I said. Is that clear?
Imus: Huh? Uhhhh . . . Wha? Heh?
Me: Hey, Andrea . . . do you think Scooter will be tempted to suppoena you as a witness, and play your taped comments from 2003 for the jury, and then play your verbal exchange with Don Imus on the air just the other day, and then ask you to explain it all to the jury, so that it can help them determine if he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as to each and every element of the offenses charged?
I GUESS WE KNOW WHY FITZGERALD DIDN'T CALL ANDREA MITCHELL AS A WITNESS!! HEH!
Keep this for your records:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/
This site has really been digging from the beginning.
The hate of the Internet by MSM is heart warming.
Very interesting analysis about that caller regarding McCain and I'll bet that's why Rush said very little - just let the comments forment and get into the airwaves and then the chatter on the net.
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.