Andrea Mitchell's Prime Time Lies

Because Joe Wilson repeated what she told him, Andrea Mitchell got placed in the middle of two Washington scandals: one at the White House and one at NBC. The White House scandal had to do with dishonest intelligence. The NBC scandal had to do with Mitchell's dishonest reporting. Now Mitchell's lies are catching up with her and her bosses at NBC News.

Mitchell's Trouble Keeping a Secret

The case against Mitchell's reporting first surfaced in the Washington Post two years ago, in a story that, we now know, described the actions of Scooter Libby and Karl Rove.

"A senior administration official told The Post on Saturday that two top government officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. Wilson said yesterday that journalists for the three major broadcast networks told him they had been contacted by someone in the White House. He named only one, Andrea Mitchell, NBC's chief foreign affairs correspondent, who interviewed Wilson and reported on July 22 that he said the administration was 'leaking his wife's covert job at the CIA to reporters.' Mitchell could not be reached for comment yesterday." "Bush Administration Is Focus of Inquiry CIA Agent's Identity Was Leaked to Media" by Mike Allen and Dana Priest Washington Post September 28, 2003

Wilson had embarrassed Mitchell. While the Post didn't dwell on Mitchell's ethical lapses, they were very easy to figure out. Here's what she reported on July 21, 2003:

"Wilson says his family is the subject of a smear campaign by senior administration officials. Wilson tells NBC News they deliberately leaked his wife's identity as a covert CIA operative, damaging her future career and compromising past missions after he criticized the administration on "Meet the Press" and in the New York Times. ...The White House strongly denies the charge." "Newscast: Diplomat claims smear campaign against him because he spoke out about Iraqi WMD intelligence" NBC Nightly News July 21, 2003

Because Mitchell had concealed her active role in the story, viewers saw Joe Wilson as a guy with an axe to grind -- a White House critic angered by Bob Novak's column, now blaming the Administration. But the White House strongly denied the charge. Where was the evidence? If Wilson had any, he should have put up or shut up.

But, as the Post revealed, Andrea Mitchell gave Wilson the evidence. As she later told Newsweek, Mitchell phoned Wilson the day before her broadcast to say, "I heard in the White House that people were touting the Novak column and that that was the real story."

Both Mitchell and Wilson knew that the "real story" bore no connection to pre-war intelligence. Wilson's allegation that the "uranium from Africa" intelligence was flimsy had been conceded by the White House on July 7, 2003, the day after Wilson's op-ed piece. After the White House concession, Wilson's motivations and credibility were virtually irrelevant. Bob Novak's column wasn't making a substantive point, only a bitchy insinuation. Thanks to the Post article, Washington knew that Mitchell had:

a. Manipulated Wilson, by eliciting a reaction to her information, while making viewers believe Wilson brought his accusation to her;
b. Removed the fingerprints of White House, by concealing what she told Wilson, thereby giving no inkling that she knew of any evidence supporting the smear campaign accusation; and
c. Betrayed an off-the-record source, from the White House, who wouldn't want Wilson to know where the rumors were being initiated.

Legally, the last infraction, "c" was the most ominous. The Justice Department had just announced a criminal investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame's name. Joe Wilson would inevitably cooperate, and repeat anything Andrea Mitchell told him. Nothing Mitchell told Wilson was legally protected by a reporter's privilege. If Wilson and Mitchell had different recollections, it was her word against his. So NBC's response that evening, read by Tom Brokaw, was carefully parsed:

"NBC News correspondent, Andrea Mitchell, has been identified by some as one of the recipients of a leak about the undercover agent. But tonight, Mitchell said that was not the case, that her first discussion with an administration official about the matter was after the Robert Novak column was published. And that discussion, she said, was off the record. NBC News never has disclosed the name of the agent." "Newscast: President Bush beginning to feel political heat over administration officials allegedly blowing cover of CIA agent" NBC Nightly News September 29, 2003

But Andrea Mitchell's specific denial, like Karl Rove's ("I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name."), soon sounded like a distinction without a difference.

Mitchell "Misspeaks"

Almost immediately, three journalists disputed the notion that Valerie Plame's CIA-status was a secret. First, on September 29, 2003, was Clifford May of the National Review Online. Second, on October 1, 2003, was Robert Novak. The third, holding a wee bit of a grudge on October 3, 2003, was Andrea Mitchell.

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

Mitchell: 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. "Analysis: Possible criminal outing of CIA agent" CNBC: Capital Report October 3, 2003

Nowadays, Mitchell's statement puts her in the middle of it. Fox News and others cite it as proof that "no underlying crime" was committed. (Mitchell's word against Wilson's?) So Mitchell backpedaled big time. On Don Imus a few days ago, she claimed she was quoted out of context. Then she said she misspoke. ("It was part of a long interview.") But her answer was oxymoronic:

"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." (Just One Minute)

So she was talking about the timeframe before Joseph Wilson's name was known. And a few seconds later...

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. (Just One Minute)

Look at Mitchell's original quote, which she saw when speaking to Imus. Look at her answer to Imus. Try and reconcile them.

Try and believe Mitchell "misspoke" a few days after a front-page story in the Post said Mitchell couldn't keep a secret and Tom Brokaw read her denial stating: (a) she received no leak "about the undercover agent" so that (b) her first discussion with "an administration official" occurred after Novak's column appeared. Try and believe Mitchell misspoke even though her false statement, using a sophisticated sentence structure, happened to undercut the premise of the investigation. Try and believe it's a coincidence that, in misspeaking, Mitchell told a fact pattern that paralleled Judith Miller's testimony about learning Plame's identity before Joe Wilson went public.

Suspicious? Yes. Does it prove Andrea Mitchell lied? Not inevitably.

Prime Time Lie: "...he told another reporter ... he had seen the documents"

Mitchell's segment on NBC Nightly News for July 15, 2004 removes any doubt that she's a liar.

Her topic: Joe Wilson "defending cracks in his story."

Mitchell: "[D]id Wilson in fact review documents about the alleged deal as he once claimed?"

Then, using an interspersed clip of Wilson from July 2003:

Mitchell: "This is the first you're seeing the documents?"
Wilson: "Mm-hmm."

Mitchell: "But he told another reporter around the same time that he had seen the documents, and they appeared to be fake." "Profile: Holes in Ambassador Joe Wilson's story about Niger and claims that Iraq tried to buy uranium" NBC Nightly News July 15, 2004

To create a "gotcha" moment, Mitchell invented her facts. Wilson never a told anyone he had seen the "documents." No one ever suggested otherwise. Wilson had spoken to a reporter about the "verbatim text" of the same alleged Niger-Iraq sales agreement, which had been secured by the CIA just prior to his trip in February 2002. Photocopies of the same agreement, or "the documents," were obtained by the CIA months after Wilson was out of the picture. In a fragmented quote, either the reporter or Wilson (it's unclear) conflated the verbatim text with the documents:

"Among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong,' the former U.S. government official said." "CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data Bush Used Report Of Uranium Bid" by Walter Pincus, Washington Post June 12, 2003

Wilson was correct about the verbatim text. Of the 7 names mentioned in the text and in related CIA memos, two were wrong. At least one date was wrong: July 7, 2000 was said to be a Wednesday, but was actually a Friday. At the time of Wilson's interview, the entire world knew that the photocopies were crude forgeries, with incorrect names and dates, thanks to the International Atomic Energy Agency's disclosure just before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Mitchell's lie was no fluke. As Mary McCarthy once said of Lillian Hellman, "Every word she writes is a lie—including 'and' and 'the.' " Mitchell, though more nuanced, was just as dishonest in the 401-word text of her Nightly News piece. Instead, of "lying" Mitchell, in almost every single sentence, dissembled to the point of fraud.

Mitchell, like other shills for the Administration, essentially lifted the talking points of Republican Senator Pat Roberts, Chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee. Roberts had tacked on his "Additional Views" to the back of a bipartisan report on intelligence on WMD in Iraq published on July 8, 2004.

Roberts' Additional Views were that Joe Wilson was dishonest and that intelligence analysts were never subjected to any outside pressure. While 2 other Republicans on the committee had signed on to Roberts' addendum, 15 of the other 17 members - 6 Republicans and 7 Democrats - declined. Nonetheless, Mitchell falsely passed off Roberts' opinions as if they were conclusions of the actual bipartisan report. Mitchell opened her Nightly News piece with Roberts speaking:

Roberts: "What he said in public did not jive with what was--what we determined to be the facts in the report."

And later:

Roberts: "If you add up about four or five things, it doesn't add up. And as I say, I don't mean to conduct a vendetta or a personal attack on the ambassador, I'm just trying to set it straight." NBC Nightly News July 15, 2004

Right.

Mitchell focused on two purported discrepancies: (1) "Reviewing the documents" above, and (2) "Wilson's wife suggesting the trip."

Prime Time Lie: "a second official confirmed she had the idea to dispatch her husband"

"The Senate report says a CIA officer told them Wilson's wife, quote, 'offered up his name' for the Niger mission. A second official confirmed she had the idea to dispatch her husband. The report also cites a memo from Wilson's wife saying, 'My husband has good relations with key officials in Niger and could shed light on the issue.' But in his recent book, Wilson wrote she had nothing to do with the matter." NBC Nightly News July 15, 2004

To convey the false impression she desired, Mitchell cherry picked. Her methods are detailed below.

But first, a few things Mitchell chose not to mention. Then and now, the CIA's position, as set forth in Novak's original column and later confirmed by CNN and others, was that Plame had nothing to do with selecting Joe Wilson for the trip to Niger. Cheney had asked about the CIA's view of the verbatim text and the CIA was working to see if it could be corroborated. One reason Wilson was chosen: he had traveled to Niger to investigate uranium matters for the CIA in 1999 - the year negotiations supposedly commenced on the uranium deal.

Finally, Mitchell mentioned none of the evidence cited by Joe Wilson in his written refutation of this allegation. But back to Mitchell's words...

1. "The Senate report says a CIA officer told them Wilson's wife, quote, 'offered up his name' for the Niger mission".

"Offered up his name" is the entire quote. Or, as written in the report:

"The CPD [Counterproliferation Division] told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife 'offered up his name'." Senate intelligence Committee Report on Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq, July 7, 2004, p. 39

And Wilson's written response:

"Neither the CPD reports officer nor the State analyst ["second official", below] were in the chain of command to know who, or how, the decision was made. The interpretations attributed to them are not the full story. In fact, it is my understanding that the Reports Officer has a different conclusion about Valerie's role than the one offered in [Roberts'] 'additional comments.' I urge the committee to re-interview the officer and publicly publish his statement." Wilson's response to the addendum of the Senate Intelligence Committee's Report July 15, 2003.

Any professional journalist would know to be suspicious of using a fragmentary quote like "offered up his name." Offered up to whom? At whose initiative? When (before or after the decision)? Why was it "offered up"? Where was it sent? Remember the five Ws of high school journalism? Mitchell couldn't be bothered.

2. "A second official confirmed she had the idea to dispatch her husband."

Mitchell lied. The second official confirmed nothing. The individual, a State Department analyst, was out of the loop and, after the fact, only guessed that Plame had the idea of sending her husband to Niger. He got that impression from attending a meeting with Joe Wilson and a number of other CIA and State analysts. To start off the meeting, Plame introduced her husband to her colleagues and then left so that discussions could begin. The State Department analysts' notes indicate that the meeting was "apparently convened by [Plame]."(emphasis added).

3. "The report also cites a memo from Wilson's wife saying, 'My husband has good relations with key officials in Niger and could shed light on the issue.'"

Wilson's response:

"[There is] one anodyne quote from a memo Valerie Plame, my wife sent to her superiors that says 'my husband has good relations with the PM (prime minister) and the former Minister of Mines, (not to mention lots of French contacts) both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.' There is no suggestion or recommendation in that statement that I be sent on the trip. Indeed, it is little more than a recitation of my contacts and bona fides." Wilson's response July 15, 2003

Again, remember the five Ws? According to Wilson, the memo was written at the request of her superior, after the decision had been made. Wilson also quoted earlier Newsday reporting that:

"A senior intelligence officer confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked 'alongside' the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger. "But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. 'They (the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story) were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising,' he said." Wilson's response July 15, 2003

And to Place it All in Context

After pushing trumped up "evidence" against Wilson, Mitchell ended her piece on July 15, 2004 by citing more "evidence" on uranium:

"Further confusing the issue, the British this week, citing their own sources, said they still believe Saddam tried to get uranium." NBC Nightly News July 15, 2004

P.S.

The foregoing doesn't cover the extent of NBC's ethical lapses in the Plame affair. Not by a long shot.

Nor does it begin to cover the scope of the true back story of the Plame investigation. Joseph Wilson is no journalist protected by no reporter's privilege. So he's willing to repeat some dirty little secrets of the Washington press corps. Secrets that demonstrate how the supposed sanctity of confidential sources is often a sham.

But that's enough for now.