Andrea Mitchell Watch — Day 2
Andrea Mitchell on October 3, 2003, on Robert Novak’s source:
MITCHELL: Joe Wilson, he now inappropriately suggested that Karl Rove may have been the person … But it’s really
… Inappropriate, I think, for any of us to suggest that someone might have been involved, because we’re talking about a possible crime, and we have no evidence of that.
Right-o, Andrea. Oh you are so right, how very white of you, you are the very model of a responsible journalist. No, you are certainly not one to indulge in idle speculation about the identity of Robert Novak’s source, especially since a crime has been committed and all. Bad, bad Joe Wilson.
Mitchell on Don Imus, November 12, 2005 (via Crooks & Liars)
IMUS: Did you talk to the same source Woodward talked to?
MITCHELL: I don’t know who Woodward talked to. I have my own suppositions but I have no factual basis.
IMUS: Well who do you think it was?
MITCHELL: I think a lot of people are speculating about Dick Armitage because he the only one of now a legion of Washington players who have said, "I wasn’t the source." Everyone’s coming forward to say they weren’t Woodward’s source. And of course now there’s also speculation Don that Woodward’s source and Novak’s secret source could be one in the same person.
Let’s revise that initial axiom just a bit. It’s irresponsible for Joe Wilson to speculate that
your boss Karl Rove might be Robert Novak’s source, but it’s fine for you to throw Dick Armitage under the bus with absolutely no evidence at all because he is after all BushCo.’s Fantasy Dream Team Leaker, and doubly so when you’re trying to pry Don Imus off your back for busting you on your all-too-convenient memory lapses.
We’ll save you a seat for you between Jeff Gannon and Armstrong Williams at the next Blogger Ethics panel, Andrea.