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.
Of course not. Then it was different because...uh... well, the media know best, right? /s.o.
Rodger That...
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.
Kill A Commie For Mommie
Seven Dead Monkeys Page O Tunes
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.
I don't think I'd like the idea of eavesdropping on all reporter's calls, either. Having said that, I have no problem eavesdropping on known terrorists' calls, regardless of who is on the other end of the line. And, the reporter's knowledge (or lack thereof) of whether he/she is speaking to a terrorist does not concern me either. I'd rather know there isn't another hit on our own soil. And, I know the MSM to be a hotbed of liberal ignorance...the kind of ignorance that would collude with terrorists to bring down America and all she was founded upon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiane_Amanpour
Shortly after her birth in London, her father, an Iranian airline executive, moved the family to Tehran, where the Amanpours led a privileged life. At age 11, she returned to England to attend first the Holy Cross Convent School in Buckinghamshire, England, and then the New Hall School, an exclusive Roman Catholic girls' school. Her family had to flee Iran after the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Christiane moved to the United States to study journalism at the University of Rhode Island. After graduation, she worked for NBC affiliate WJAR in Providence, Rhode Island.
I don't think this story is going to be huge or serious.
It is quite conceivable that Amanpour and CNN actively cultivate "Al Quaeda" sources. Is the American public going to trust a reporter or news organization which colludes with the enemy??? I don't think so and I don't think CNN would be willing to divulge this info either.
Of course, she'd do like Peter Arnett and get a column in a foreign paper, where she's claim she was only talking to "freedom fighters" and denounce the "Nazi-like" Bush Administration.
Gee... I wonder if they monitored Joe Wilson, the Kennedys, the Kerrys, Howard, Pelosi, Hillary etc. Now that would be sweet. No longer will Karl Rove have to ask "what do you know and when did you know it" because he already knows !!! LOL
No wonder so many DemocRATS have the jitters.
Exactly....the lefties are seeing that their OUTRAGE over the NSA wiretapping scandal isn't causing regular Americans to do the same...
SO>..they find a way to make it seem more sinister...that possibly Bush was spying on a reporter with Middle East name/accent...GASP!!
Did they? I don't know. But it is possible and releasing the tapes would be a wonderful move on the administrations part if push comes to shove on the matter.
Who's Christiane Amanpour???
I think part of my frustration is the fact that reporters seem to think they live in a perpetual state of imunity from everything. While the press in a free country should have freedom, freedom is NOT imunity.
Further, reporters will be the first to stalk, eavesdrop and exploit whomever suits their stories. And, sometimes, I think a little dark corner of my heart likes to see them get a taste of their own.
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.