Andrea Mitchell Knocks Petraeus, but Gets Her Facts Wrong
By Bluey Posted in Featured Stories | War — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
If Andrea Mitchell is going to criticize the Bush Administration for its Iraq policy, the least she could do is get basic facts correct. And when she does screw up -- as she did on Sunday -- it would be nice to get a correction.
Appearing on "The Chris Matthews Show" on Sunday, Mitchell asserted that Gen. David Petraeus held a private meeting with the Republican caucus to discuss Iraq. In the context in which she said it, Mitchell portrayed the meeting as a political strategy session with Republicans. However, the meeting was anything of the sort. In fact, 11 Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, were invited but skipped the briefing. Only Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D.-Mich.) participated in the video teleconference with Petraeus in Baghdad.
A day after making the flub, Matthews haphazardly raised the issue with Mitchell on "Hardball" yesterday. Only this time Mitchell said "Democrats as well as Republicans" attended the briefing. Unfortunately, it was too late to undo the damage already done. Liberal bloggers were already having a field day with Mitchell's pronouncement.
Read on ...
Although Mitchell appears to have her story straight now, she still hasn't issued a correction. Salon's Joan Walsh was one blogger who criticized Petraeus on Sunday. She wrote last night, "It seems Petraeus didn't meet alone with Republicans, and I apologize for my role in passing that along (but it would be nice to also hear an apology from Mitchell and Matthews)." Don't count on it, Joan.
Hat tip to Mary Katharine Ham.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | Would you like some booze with your news? — Comments (29) »
Andrea Mitchell Knocks Petraeus, but Gets Her Facts Wrong 8 Comments (0 topical, 8 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
has to be filtered through the fact-checkers in the blogosphere (and I don't mean the nutroots) AND corrected before I'll believe a word of it. The MSM are lying for a living, period.
Thanks for the fact-checking!
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
Michael Ware would have been a very old man, ice skating in Hell, surrounded by flying pigs before I would have ever corrected the story on him heckling McCain.
Mitchell is supposed to be a professional for crying out loud.
I guess being a professional means you never have to take back a Democrat talking point.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
He sure had a lot to say about the Michael Ware story, but, shockingly, not a peep from him about Andrea Mitchell.
Can't say I'm surprised.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
What do the two things have to do with one another? And why drag a disagreement from one thread into another?
If you can't condemn Andrea Mitchell with the same bile that you were spewing in the other thread, then you need to read Matthew 23:24.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
I sincerely apologize that anything I wrote could have been considered "bile".
Nonetheless, I don't feel I have anything to add on the subject of Andrea Mitchell. No need for me to repeat anything that's already been written.
Although I think it's unkind of you to call her a camel. :)
To anyone who has actually listened to Andrea Mitchell, her lack of knowledge, expertise or facts in most matters should not surprise anyone when she gets it wrong.
She is a lefty with media creds - why would correctly reporting a story be expected?
Mitchell is tedious and predictable.
You gave Mitchell the benefit of the doubt, that it was a mistake. Not a bald face lie intended to agitate the blogosphere and generate so much negative propaganda.
She is, after all, a democrat operative.
Enough said.
Support the Mission - Honor the troops
Exsolvo Orbis Terrarum