| Submit your comments on this article | |||||
| Home Front: Politix | |||||
| Andrea Mitchell: I 'Misspoke' on Plame ID | |||||
| 2005-11-10 | |||||
| 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 [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."
"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."
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? MITHCELL: 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.
| |||||
| Posted by:Steve |
| #11 "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." So, she's saying that her answer applied only to the period after Novak's column ran? In other words, it was "widely known" to the crack reporters "trying to track down" the Niger envoy only after Novak spilled the beans in his nationally-syndicated column? Boy, howdy, you can't put nothin' past them reporter-types. |
| Posted by: Angie Schultz 2005-11-10 19:57 |
| #10 Leaks, aside from my kitchen faucet, what about who was responsible for revealing our black opt prisons in Eastern Europe. We've been told we're supposed to be glad that was leaked. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-11-10 13:15 |
| #9 Leaks, aside from my kitchen faucet, what about who was responsible for revealing our black opt prisons in Eastern Europe. Like this Novak crap is so bad. Our blessed soldiers and other risk takers are out there dealing with terrorist filth, interrogating, fighting back like a great nation must. What about the democrat traitors slamming our every effort and belittling the cause of our brave souls in harm's way. |
| Posted by: Bardo 2005-11-10 12:43 |
| #8 Well, I knew she worked for the CIA before I didn't know she worked for the CIA. |
| Posted by: macofromoc 2005-11-10 12:14 |
| #7 Don't screw up now, lady. Hubby's retiring in a couple of months. You'l be the only breadwinner in the house. Al will be pissed if you get tossed out on your ass and he has to go bag at Stop and Shop. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-11-10 12:11 |
| #6 Curt Simon - You beat me to that remark! |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-11-10 11:51 |
| #5 Hey Andrea! Fake, but accurate, right? |
| Posted by: Curt Simon 2005-11-10 11:45 |
| #4 Yeah, 'neo-con' is soooo passe. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2005-11-10 11:32 |
| #3 but now it's "Bloggers"? You know how it is with those darn 'bloggers' always fact-checking your ass with those darn 'facts'. How inconvenient! Like Homer Simpson says: Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! |
| Posted by: SteveS 2005-11-10 11:26 |
| #2 So it used to be the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiricy", but now it's "Bloggers"? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-11-10 11:11 |
| #1 Still, despite her admission, Mitchell blamed partisan "bloggers" for distorting her comments: Just like Mary Mapes! |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-11-10 10:40 |