Skip to comments.Spying, CNN and the Kerry campaign: Is there a there there? [Did GW spy on CNN reporter & Kerry?]
Posted on 01/05/2006 12:43:20 PM PST by summer
It gets curiouser and curiouser.
As we noted Wednesday, [a liberal site] noticed an odd moment in Andrea Mitchell's interview this week with New York Times reporter James Risen: While interviewing Risen about his new book and revelations that George W. Bush authorized warrantless spying on American citizens, Mitchell asked Risen if he had any information suggesting that CNN's international correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, "might have been eavesdropped upon." Risen said he didn't. But as [the liberal site] surmised, the question certainly suggested that Mitchell did.
Right about the time the [liberal site's] theory started floating through the blogosphere, somebody deleted Mitchell's question and Risen's answer from the transcript posted on MSNBC's Web site. We said we'd like to hear an explanation, and TVNewser actually went to the trouble of getting one. "Unfortunately this transcript was released prematurely," reads a statement TVNewser says it got from NBC. "It was a topic on which we had not completed our reporting, and it was not broadcast on 'NBC Nightly News' nor on any other NBC News program. We removed that section of the transcript so that we may further continue our inquiry."
Assuming the statement is legitimate, that sure seems to us like a long way of saying, "Yeah, we're looking into the possibility that the Bush administration was eavesdropping on Christiane Amanpour."
Now, it's probably time for a deep breath and some patience here. What we've got here is some reading between the lines, and it's about a question, not an answer. But as we said yesterday, if the answer is ultimately answered in the affirmative -- that is, if the Bush administration has indeed been listening in on Amanpour's phone -- the implications are enormous. We don't much like the idea that the government might be listening in on the conversations of a reporter. And Amanpour isn't just any reporter: She is married to Jamie Rubin, a State Department spokesman under Bill Clinton and a foreign policy advisor to John Kerry's presidential campaign. If the Bush administration was listening in on Amanpour's phone, was it listening when she talked with her husband? Was it listening when he might have used her phone himself?
Again, what we've got here are hints about a question. We're a long way from an answer. But when you start circumventing Congress and the courts and begin to spy on Americans in a way that you insist you aren't, you invite questions like these. And along the way, you invite people to think about the last time some people who worked for a president tried to spy on the opposition.
But, I guess when John Kerry makes his eventual lame-brain, longwinded, confusing comment, then: it will officially become "news."
If Amanpour was talking to terrorists or suspected terrorists (which wouldn't surprise me) I hope we were spying on her.
Seems like another element in the media's continuing attempt to toss as many "questions" out there so later they can say "Many questions surround the President" and add to the "environment of corruption," which on close observation amounts to nothing.
If Christiane Amanpour's conversations were monitored, it was because of overseas calls to questionable people. I don't have a probelem with it at all.
She's a public, known, associate of terrorists.
Of course she's monitored.
Eavesdropping on The War Whore's phone conversations sounds like an outstanding way to find out what the bad guys are going to be up to next, unless you really believe that it's just coincidence when she shows up in the next CNN war zone and doesn't get a heads-up call from the bad guys.
I am wondering if people like her, being in media, and trying to report, are the targets of propaganda put out by terrorists who pretend not to be. I am guessing that probably does happen, whether she thinks she is talking to a terrorist or she doesn't think so because she doesn't know.
Lets see if I can connect the dots.
Kerry is a communist and a known treasonous communist sympathizer.
So is anyone who works for him.
So is CA.
Bush was using his authority to spy on enemies of the state.
Whats the problem?
The chance that Annanpour was spied upon is far lower than the chance that she is an active agent working to assist our enemies.
Considering the source it's probably more moonbat conspiricy theories. But come to think of it Amanpour and her husband given their backgrounds as CNN and Clinton administration respectively they could well be associates of Osama and therefore may have had their phone conversations picked up!!!!!!Hahahahahhahaha
Perhaps Amanpour has contacts with Al Quaeda...would NBC want to divulge that???? Shouldn't the govt investigate ANY citizen who contacts terrorists??? I think so...
Glas someone dropped the dime on her.
Typical left-wing lie. The "warrantless" evesdropping, not SPYING, only applied to U.S. citizens who were speaking with terrorists calling from overseas. At which point the "citizen" became a foreign agent--with no 4th amendment priviliges.
To expect anything close to the truth from the left, especially Salon, is drinking the bong water.
Only if Kerry was using Osama's cell phone: http://americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=4103
I am betting we see her interviewed on CNN very soon, and this question will be asked at the next presser, thanks to Salon mentioning it.
I have to admit, it would disturb me that we are bugging reporters. Which is probably why they're floating this idea.
Re your post #5 - I always thought she was a US citizen -- is she not?
But do reporters even know when they are talking to terrorists? Or are reporters subject to being duped by terrorists? That is something one has to consider, too. I, too, agree this would normally bother me if true, but, reporters seem like perfect targets of terrorists wanting to get "their side" of the story out. And, I am not sure that reporters have a list of terrorists like the US govt does. It seems to me there are likely times when a reporter talking to foreigners really has no idea the actual background of those foreigners. So there is, perhaps, a worthy case to be made on both sides here, in the context of the current times.
If she attempted to contact a terrorist for an interview, and wiretapping her phone assisted in finding his hideout, that's a legitimate attempt to flush out a terrorist.
But you know that when this story breaks we will have a flood of "Impeachment" calls.
I like the idea that these losers are getting all sorts of paranoid about this, though.
I would to, provided no topless beaches were involved.
I would think a reporter would know if she's talking to a terrorist. Why else would she be talking to a terrorist--as a source? I imagine CA has attempted many times to get interviews with certain terrorists.
There are probably times when a reporter does know the interviewee is a terrorist, but I am guessing that knowledge does not always exist for the reporter.
Seems to me that since not one person has stepped forward to complain re: "spying", one has to be invented for all the "what ifs" and "this could happen to you" and "IMPEACH" and etc.
Maybe they wondered if sKerry was still staying in touch with his old communist buddies from his Viet Nam glory days.
Yeah, and the flood of ACLU full-page NYT ads calling GW a liar has not slowed down one bit. I think they really believe they can make a case for impeachment, but I also think that is a real long-shot because of the actual legal expansion of presidential powers during war time.
We aren't bugging or wiretapping, we're eavesdropping (catching airwaves) of individuals in foreign lands calling known terrorists and their sympethizers in our country. If we catch "reporters" in this snare... too bad for them.
How and why did the journalist with the video camera have his camera pointed at that area with the bomb at the time they didn't when there was nothing worth videoing going on prior to the explosion?
I am curious. Why is CNN and Salon not at all intrested in investigating the proven corrdination between CBS and the Kerry Campaign in fruadlent Rathergate story? Seems they are more intrested in MAKING UP accusations instead of investigating REAL corruption. Why is that?
Calm down, your distinction has been noted. I don't like eavesdropping on reporters, happy now?
See my post #34.
Reporters seem to magically be "at the right place at the right time" to capture images of some things.
And remember early on in the war when a group of journalists were approached by terrorists and the terrorists tipped them off that a convoy of American troops would be coming through shortly and they were going to attack them? Then the group of reporters took a position to capture the attack, but didn't warn the coming American forces!
There is good reason to eavesdrop on some reporters who clearly have contact with our enemies if it is known they have contact with them.
So what if they did? Amanpour and the RATS are in bed with the terrorists.
I don't recall reporters too upset when Newt's private phone conversations were eavesdropped on. The media ran with the story with glee. No concern for privacy then.
It clarifies your position but I think it is a foolish one. Reporter is an entry-level position that any green-on-the-vine graduate can fill. FR is filled with examples of the subversive dealings of the MSM, how many reporters are actually Muhammed Attas writing stories to discredit the one man on earth with the combination of vision and nuts to go after them?
If a reporter needs monitoring, we'd better be monitoring! They aren't some class of human exempt of suspicion.
Of course not. Then it was different because...uh... well, the media know best, right? /s.o.
You call a number flagged as a suspected terrorist or even someone who talks to known terrorist and you become subject to inquiry. If you don't think this matters remember that we had reporters in South East Asia say that they would not warn U.S. forces if they learned of enemy action since that would "compromise them" and (kinda) make them "spies". With this type of monitoring capability the NSA has the ability to do what the reporters say they could not "morally" do... know what the reporter knows if the reporter is collaborating with the enemy. If a state of war existed, oh by the way, such collaboration could get you hung, no matter what your exalted position in life.
Find it interesting why certain FReeper, while pretending to deplore it, keep assigning Intellectual Credibility to the most wacko far out accusations. Sorry but accusations are just that. Seems the closet Leftist here on Free Republic assume that if they keep screaming their lies over and over here some Freepers will believed them true. Sorry Accusations are NOT proof of ANYTHING.
I would disturb you that we are bugging reporters who are talking to our enemy? Why because the enemy has a right to privacy? Becuase the media should be allowed to talk to our enemies and spew their propaganda? What exactly bothers you about our spy agencies monitoring phonecalls coming to and from known terrorist phone numbers? What if Dick Cheney was calling Osama's chef, would we want to hear what was discussed? You damn right and we have every right to arrest old Dick if he's talking sushi with a terorist - because Sushi could be code for Nuclear!
Christiane would have been my first wire tap, the editorial meeting room at the NYT and other news outlets would have been my second, third, etc...The government has the right to control information flow OUT of this country.
This will be portrayed as Watergate 2 far more easily than the "wiretapping" story. We will see nonstop, daily coverage of "Bush secretly spied on reporters" from now until election day. That's not going to go over well with the public because it will fit into the Democrats' "story" which they've been telling. Abu Grahbe, secret prisons, torture, wiretapping, Amanpour, none of them matter on their own, but the reporters will "connect the dots" and create the image of Bush as head of a Nazi police state.
The MSM is powerful as we all know. This will be a smear job of unbelievable proportions and we dismiss it at our peril.
The blue eagle flies at dawn.
Remember when the Clinton's were all up in arms about the "right-wing" media planting stories that then became news. And how many of those news organizations were suddenly hit with IRS audits. The Clinton's probably knew who ever donor to these sites were through their IRS pals. ISN'T THAT ALSO SPYING!
This would explain a lot about CNN.