Day by Day

Thursday, November 10, 2005

Andrea Mitchell - LIAR

NBC's Andrea Mapes....ooops...Mitchell was asked by host Alan Murray in an Oct. 3, 2003 interview (roughly about the same time Plame was posing for her "ironic" and "humorous" Vanity Fair photo shoot her husband swore she'd "chop her right arm off before partaking in because she "still worked at the CIA" and "had obligations to her employer") on CNBC's "Captial Report:

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

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."

But now that this lying Democrat sleaze bag press operative thinks her previous admission would soil the Democrat Media's case against Libby and Eeeeeeevil Bush, she's LYING HER ASS OFF in response to softball questions from Don Imus:

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. (REFER TO THE QUESTION SHE WAS ASKED!)

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 (love the stammering, Andrea) 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 (stammering again, Andrea) 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?


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 (we have the exact quote, Andrea, you lying Democrat bitch, but PLEASE LIE SOME MORE) - I said that it was widely known that Wilson was an envoy and that his wife worked at the CIA. But (BUT BUT BUT BUT 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, (lying bitch) I was talking about after the Novak column. (no you weren't and neither was Alan Murray refering to AFTER the Novak column because, you brain dead lying Democrat BITCH, AFTER NOVAK's COLUMN EVERY FUCKING BODY KNEW IT! The question was about how widely known it was BEFORE Novak's column) And that was not clear. I may have misspoken in October 2003 in that interview. (Taking her cues from Joe Liar Wilson)

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. (not it isn't) I was trying to express what I knew before the Novak column and there was some confusion in that one interview. (no you weren't. Further proof, lying bitch? SURE! You referred to "those who were trying to figure out who the special envoy was". THAT Joe Liar Wilson was the special envoy WAS KNOWN LONG BEFORE NOVAK's COLUMN! So there is no fucking way you were referring to "after" the column. That is now 2 seperate frames of reference you provided in your initial statement that put the lie to your desperate attempt to rewrite history with Imus!!)

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. (Just like you, right liar?)

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 . . .

(OH!?! I've addressed EVERYTHING you said in the context you said it! You are a lying partisan sack of shit.)

IMUS: Bingo.


Bingo! Busted, bitch.

No comments: