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.
glad
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?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.