This is an exchange between Andrea Mitchell and Don Imus. If a drunkard
has-been like Imus can fluster Mitchell this badly, it will be comical
watching Libby's attorney turn people like her into mincemeat on the witness
stand.



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.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:24:57 +0000, NOYB wrote:

This is an exchange between Andrea Mitchell and Don Imus. If a drunkard
has-been like Imus can fluster Mitchell this badly, it will be comical
watching Libby's attorney turn people like her into mincemeat on the
witness stand.

The flip side, Cheney, in all probability, will also have to testify. Oh,
Mitchell has been taken out of context. Her complete quote:

" 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. But frankly, I wasn't aware of her actual role
at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of
mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511090013

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:24:57 +0000, NOYB wrote:

This is an exchange between Andrea Mitchell and Don Imus. If a drunkard
has-been like Imus can fluster Mitchell this badly, it will be comical
watching Libby's attorney turn people like her into mincemeat on the
witness stand.

The flip side, Cheney, in all probability, will also have to testify. Oh,
Mitchell has been taken out of context. Her complete quote:

" It was widely known among those of us..."

"It"? What is "it"? You need to post the question posed to her in order to
know what "it" was:

MURRAY: "Do we have any idea how widely known *IT* was in Washington that
Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?"

So "it" was referring to the following:

The fact "that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA"!

So taken *in context*, it means a lot more than what she's now trying to
spin it to mean.




continued...
"But frankly, I wasn't aware of her actual role
at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of
mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it."


So Mitchell didn't:
a) know her (Plame's) role at the CIA (not that she didn't know her identity
nor that she worked at the CIA)
and
b) didn't know she had a role involving WMD (once again, not that she didn't
know who Plame was, and who it was that sent Joe Wilson).


Mitchell is now stuck defending Tim Russert's perjurious testimony in the
journalist-friendly press (and failing miserably I might add). Wait until
she's forced to defend it on the witness stand.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
This is an exchange between Andrea Mitchell and Don Imus. If a drunkard
has-been like Imus can fluster Mitchell this badly, it will be comical
watching Libby's attorney turn people like her into mincemeat on the
witness stand.



Out of context, but nice try.

thunder's post was out of context.

It all depends upon what the meaning of the word "it" is.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 16:42:27 +0000, NOYB wrote:


MURRAY: "Do we have any idea how widely known *IT* was in Washington that
Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?"

So "it" was referring to the following:

The fact "that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA"!

So taken *in context*, it means a lot more than what she's now trying to
spin it to mean.




continued...
"But frankly, I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact
that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not
until Bob Novak wrote it."


So Mitchell didn't:
a) know her (Plame's) role at the CIA (not that she didn't know her
identity nor that she worked at the CIA)
and
b) didn't know she had a role involving WMD (once again, not that she
didn't know who Plame was, and who it was that sent Joe Wilson).


Mitchell is now stuck defending Tim Russert's perjurious testimony in the
journalist-friendly press (and failing miserably I might add). Wait until
she's forced to defend it on the witness stand.

You are overlooking the timeline. "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."

"The envoy to Niger" wasn't an issue until May 6, 2003, when Kristof
published his article. Wilson's op-ed piece wasn't until July 6, 2003,
and Novak's article was July 14, 2003. Let's assume, Plame's employment
at the CIA was becoming known to elements of the Press during that time
period. It is still quite possible that Russert did not know and, as
Fitzgerald said in the indictment, Plame's "affiliation with the CIA was
not common knowledge outside the intelligence community."

Elements of the Press are, I'm sure, not looking forward to this trial,
but, then, neither is anyone in this administration. They definitely have
more to loose. You seem to think Libby will be exonerated. I think that
is unlikely, but even if he is, the underlying issues will still be an
embarrassment to the White House.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 16:42:27 +0000, NOYB wrote:


MURRAY: "Do we have any idea how widely known *IT* was in Washington
that
Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?"

So "it" was referring to the following:

The fact "that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA"!

So taken *in context*, it means a lot more than what she's now trying to
spin it to mean.




continued...
"But frankly, I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact
that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not
until Bob Novak wrote it."


So Mitchell didn't:
a) know her (Plame's) role at the CIA (not that she didn't know her
identity nor that she worked at the CIA)
and
b) didn't know she had a role involving WMD (once again, not that she
didn't know who Plame was, and who it was that sent Joe Wilson).


Mitchell is now stuck defending Tim Russert's perjurious testimony in the
journalist-friendly press (and failing miserably I might add). Wait
until
she's forced to defend it on the witness stand.

You are overlooking the timeline. "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."

"The envoy to Niger" wasn't an issue until May 6, 2003, when Kristof
published his article. Wilson's op-ed piece wasn't until July 6, 2003,
and Novak's article was July 14, 2003. Let's assume, Plame's employment
at the CIA was becoming known to elements of the Press during that time
period.



It is still quite possible that Russert did not know and, as
Fitzgerald said in the indictment, Plame's "affiliation with the CIA was
not common knowledge outside the intelligence community."

NBC reportter Andrea Mitchell knew, but the NBC Washington Bureau chief
didn't? Not likely.

Christof knew. Pincus knew. Mitchell knew. Russert knew. Russert lied to
the GJ about not knowing.



Elements of the Press are, I'm sure, not looking forward to this trial,
but, then, neither is anyone in this administration. They definitely have
more to loose.

Actually, the White House has already been convicted by the media and public
opinion. They stand more to gain than lose with this investigation.

Of course, if it's shown that Libby told the truth, and Russert and Wilson
lied, it might make page A21 of the NY times.



You seem to think Libby will be exonerated. I think that
is unlikely, but even if he is, the underlying issues will still be an
embarrassment to the White House.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:33:47 +0000, NOYB wrote:


NBC reportter Andrea Mitchell knew, but the NBC Washington Bureau chief
didn't? Not likely.

Christof knew. Pincus knew. Mitchell knew. Russert knew. Russert lied
to the GJ about not knowing.

Why would he? Besides, Russert is only a small part of the equation. A
half dozen other sources have Libby knowing about Plame, before his talk
with Russert. Are you saying they all lied?

Actually, the White House has already been convicted by the media and
public opinion. They stand more to gain than lose with this
investigation.

I'm not sure public opinion has convicted Libby, but it is slowly starting
to indict Bush on his run-up to war. If Americans are still dying when
Libby goes to trail, even if he is exonerated will be irrelevant to public
opinion on Bush.

"thunder" wrote in message
...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511090013

Please stop quoting mediamatters.org...or I'll start quoting Newsmax.


Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3)
progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively
monitoring, analyzing, and *CORRECTING CONSERVATIVE MISINFORMATION* in the
U.S. media.

NOYB wrote:
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3)
progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively
monitoring, analyzing, and *CORRECTING CONSERVATIVE MISINFORMATION* in the
U.S. media.


I see. You believe that "conservatives" should be allowed... or perhaps
encouraged... to lie at will? What happened to integrity & accountability?

DSK

DSK wrote:

What happened to integrity & accountability?

Ted Kennedy and the rad left Dems.

--
Skipper