Quote :

"UPDATE: One more point. NBC did NOT delete the part of the interview preceding the Amanpour question - where Mitchell asks if any reporters are being spied on. They only deleted the follow-up question about whether Amanpour was being spied on. Thus, their premature release of info regarding an "ongoing inquiry" wasn't about reporters generally - or they'd have deleted that part of the interview as well - they only deleted the Amanpour follow-up, suggesting that it's the question of whether Bush spied on Amanpour that they have been, and are still, investigating. That's incredibly big news. NBC has acknowledged that they have information to suggest that Bush may have spied (be spying) on CNN's Christiane Amanpour and that NBC is currently investigating that very possibility. This isn't just conjecture anymore, NBC has confirmed it. You can read about how NBC changed the transcript of the interview after we reported on it here. And you can read how spying on CNN's Amanpour could end up involving Bill Clinton, John Kerry and General Wesley Clark here."

Quote :

"Wednesday, January 04, 2006 NBC changes official transcript of Andrea Mitchell interview, deletes reference to Bush possibly wiretapping CNN's Christane Amanpour Mitchell: Do you have any information about reporters being swept up in this net? Risen: No, I don't. It's not clear to me. That's one of the questions we'll have to look into the future. Were there abuses of this program or not? I don't know the answer to that Mitchell: You don't have any information, for instance, that a very prominent journalist, Christiane Amanpour, might have been eavesdropped upon? Risen: No, no I hadn't heard that. Here's what it says now: Mitchell: Do you have any information about reporters being swept up in this net? Risen: No, I don't. It's not clear to me. That's one of the questions we'll have to look into the future. Were there abuses of this program or not? I don't know the answer to that Mitchell: You are very, very tough on the CIA and the administration in general in both the war on terror and the run up to the war and the war itself Â? the post-war operation. Let's talk about the war on terror. Why do you think they missed so many signals and what do you think caused the CIA to have this sort of break down as you describe it? Risen: I think that, you know, to me, the greater break down was really on Iraq. It's very difficult to have known ahead of time about these 19 hijackers. They were, you know, probably lucky that they got through and they did something that no one really assumed anybody would ever do. And I think that made 9/11 a lot like Pearl Harbor. That even when you see all the clues in front of you that it's very difficult to put it together. "

1/9/2006 11:34:36 AM

it ain't like bush needed help winning

or

it ain't like kerry needed any help losing

[Edited on January 9, 2006 at 11:46 AM. Reason : +]

1/9/2006 11:45:41 AM

MANDATE MANDINGO

1/9/2006 11:46:15 AM

Too bad Bush didn't get warrants for all of his wiretaps.

1/9/2006 11:46:53 AM

hook up some links. I've seen some of this, but where's the info on how it could relate to kerry?

1/9/2006 12:12:55 PM

probably.


*paging salisburyboy*

TEH JOOZ DID IT!

[Edited on January 9, 2006 at 12:15 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2006 12:15:22 PM

don't even TRY to discredit this by referencing salisburyboy. the bush admin has admitted to this spying, and the fbi and cia have admitted to spying on nonviolent protest groups, so there's absolutely no reason to think they wouldn't spy in a democratic opponent.

1/9/2006 12:17:00 PM

I mean, assuming this may be real, it's very nixonian and feels eerily close to watergate. But I doubt it.

1/9/2006 12:19:34 PM

Quote :

"Intelligence official: NSA didn't "target" Amanpour NBC's Andrea Mitchell raised a question this week as to whether, as part of the Bush administration's warrantless spying program, the National Security Agency has been eavesdropping on CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour, the wife of former Clinton aide and Kerry advisor Jamie Rubin. CNN has now weighed in. CNN issued a statement Thursday in which it said that neither Amanpour nor the network was aware of any government eavesdropping on her phone conversations. Later in the day, CNN aired a report, summarized here, in which it said that a senior U.S. intelligence official had assured the network that Amanpour had never been "targeted" for eavesdropping. If any of her calls were recorded inadvertently, the official said, any recordings would have been deleted "by law." So maybe that means there's no there there: So far, no one has come forward with anything like proof that the NSA has actually been listening in on Amanpour's calls. Maybe that's where the story will stand. But as John Aravosis points out at AMERICAblog, there's still a lot of play in the joints here. We don't know that Amanpour wasn't targeted; we know that an unidentified senior U.S. intelligence official says that she wasn't. We don't know that Amanpour's calls weren't monitored; we only know that an unidentified senior U.S. intelligence officer says that her calls weren't "targeted." We don't know that any recordings of her calls that might have been made were actually deleted; we only know that an unidentified senior U.S. intelligence officer says the law would require their deletion. As Aravosis says, it's a little late to be taking on faith the notion that the administration does what's required "by law." The NSA may be required "by law" to delete inadvertent recordings of innocent "U.S. persons," but isn't that the same law that prohibited warrantless spying on Americans in the first place? And it's great to have assurances from an unidentified senior U.S. intelligence official. But remember how the president himself insisted last year that all wiretaps were carried out pursuant to court orders? That wasn't true. When it was revealed that Bush had waived the warrant requirement long before he spoke, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Gen. Michael Hayden both insisted that it was technologically impossible for the NSA to have been listening in on calls that both originated and ended in the United States. That wasn't true, either. Maybe CNN's unidentified senior U.S. intelligence official is speaking the truth this time. But given all the water under the bridge so far, how could we possibly know? "

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html


If he wasn't doing anything wrong, why didn't Bush get warrants for his wiretaps?

1/9/2006 12:34:17 PM

Quote :

"DirtyGreek: hook up some links. I've seen some of this, but where's the info on how it could relate to kerry?"

Do you even have to ask?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/

1/9/2006 12:42:46 PM

i wish the associated press hadnt "spied" on the west virginia rescue workers' phone conversations

1/9/2006 4:32:42 PM

It's amazing that under Bush it is the "administration" that is spying....

Under Clinton it was the CIA or NSA that was spying....

Same agencies in charge of intelligence gathering, but different spin/crap.

The media should have to obtain licenses just like engineers, lawyers and doctors. There are no legal organizations checking on the media to ensure that they are not committing malpractice. The delivery of information to the masses is just as important (see misreporting of Koran abuse that led to riots and deaths) as the practices of lawyers, doctors, and engineers. We are checked by government entities to ensure our accuracy. The media should be too. Reporting whatever hits you with no sources or credibility should result in revocation of a license to present news to the nation.

1/9/2006 4:44:41 PM

has there been an administration that didn't spy?

poor pryderi still wants a president that more than likely will never exist

1/9/2006 4:53:12 PM

pryderi: "Osama for President"

1/9/2006 4:55:19 PM

IMPEACH WASHINGTON, HE SPIED ON THE BRITS WITH HIS WOODEN EYES

1/9/2006 5:03:19 PM

I dunno, this sounds like grasping at straws to me.

I don't get it: Bush has given the Democrats so many legitimate, well documented issues to sink him on, why do they have to gamble their respect by going for these sorts real stretches and conspiracy theories? Hell, if you guys want to impeach the man that badly, just take Congress this November and then crucify him for bad intelligence or something.

This mirrors the Republican's fanatical chase after Bill Clinton that I'm afraid the Democrats are going to overstep and trip themselves up. Trying to say that the NSA intentionally went after Amanpour is like attempting to link the Clintons to "suiciding" Vince Foster.

1/9/2006 5:48:46 PM

Quote :

"it ain't like kerry needed any help losing"

1/9/2006 5:52:24 PM

What was bush going to learn from kerry's campaign?

The absolute best way to loose to a retard?

1/9/2006 5:57:39 PM

Quote :

"I dunno, this sounds like grasping at straws to me."

thats right. this is just more "do anything to get bush stuff". it will go away soon. dont even sweat it

1/9/2006 6:00:04 PM

Quote :

"The absolute best way to loose to a retard?"

irony

1/9/2006 7:08:18 PM

Bush is dumb
Kerry is a retard
let's just hope Hillary doesn't win in '08

1/9/2006 7:22:22 PM

dead end

1/11/2006 3:22:50 PM

1/11/2006 10:10:51 PM

1/11/2006 11:29:29 PM

1/12/2006 2:45:53 AM