Did Capitol Hill Blue Post An Article With Fabrications?

Me ^

[William McKinley]

In this article on Capitol Hill Blue, there are the following lines:

"The report had already been discredited," said Terrance J. Wilkinson, a CIA advisor present at two White House briefings. "This point was clearly made when the President was in the room during at least two of the briefings."

Bush's response was anger, Wilkinson said.

"He said that if the current operatives working for the CIA couldn't prove the story was true, then the agency had better find some who could," Wilkinson said. "He said he knew the story was true and so would the world after American troops secured the country."

Serious allegations. But I notice it is a single source. Being a conservative, I value the lessons of experience, and experience has told me that single sources are to be treated with skeptism. When I see one, I want to know more about the source quoted so as to establish if I should treat that source as credible.

So what about "Terrance J. Wilkinson"?

A Google search for "Terrance J. Wilkinson" found no results (which will change when Google picks up the Capitol Hill Blue article).

Google suggested that the name might be Terrence. But a Google search on "Terrence J. Wilkinson" also produced no hits.

Perhaps the middle initial is the problem. Alas, a Google search on "Terrence Wilkinson" CIA gave no hits, and a Google search on "Terrance Wilkinson" CIA also yielded no hits.

A Google news search on Terrence Wilkinson comes up with nothing relevant. So does a Google news search of Terrance Wilkinson.

A Google search on one of the phrases from one of the quotations comes up empty.

I would anticipate a 'CIA advisor' who attends the same briefings as the President to live somewhere near D.C. But there are no listings according to Anywho for a Terrance or Terrence Wilkinson in D.C., Maryland, or Virginia.

A Google search on "CIA Advisor" Wilkinson also comes up empty.

Perhaps Capitol Hill Blue would be better served by providing some more information about the person quoted so that others can judge his credibility. That is, if he exists.

[trick question]

Beyond what is alleged in this thread, the article on your website is false on its face. The White House admitting that something was shown to be untrue does not in any way shape or form mean that the White House admits Bush lied. As a matter of fact, the White House categorally denies lying. Your article lies.

But if you know Terry so well, it should not be difficult for you to call him up and find out some other details of the alleged briefing, such as other names of people involved, who can then be asked if any such thing ever occurred.

[rwfromkansas]

Thanks for the info about searching Lexus nexus etc. and not finding the former people in a previous story.

[Nick Danger]

You can search the Internet until the cows come home and you probably won't turn up any information that from 1981-87, I worked for three different Republican congressmen on the Hill (as press secretary, chief of staff and a committee consultant).

Actually, that was easy.

Thompson took a sabbatical from newspapers in 1981 and moved to Washington and work on Capitol Hill, where he served as press secretary to two members of Congress, Chief of Staff to a third and then Special Assistant to the Ranking Member of the House Space, Science and Technology Committee.

That's not to say that the next guy wouldn't be harder to find, but we do this a lot around here, and it very, very, rare that a person who plays above a certain level leaves absolutely no tracks. We hardly ever see it.

We can't prove a negative, but we can notice that we almost almost prove the positives.

[Doug Thompson]

QUOTE:
______________________________________________________

But not enough. Saying "well, there's no information about my political work in the Eighties for Republicans on Google, ergo, Google is suspect" does not mean that your individual from January happens to exist. Indeed, if he was some "high powered consultant" in D.C., wouldn't there be some record of his activities from the late nineties?

And Nick Danger and others didn't just use Google. They used NEXIS, they used WHOIS, they used several different Web and non Web-based search methods. Your friend from January just didn't show up. Your Republican Consultant is off playing Miniature Golf somewhere; meanwhile, we're supposed to buy into Wilkenson?

Then, today, this Mystery Man shows up who gives you (not Dana Milbank, not Andrea Mitchell, not even Bob Woodward, but you) a story that just happens to jive with your obvious dislike of the President and your opposition to this war. Oh, not only is Bush deceptive, but he gets frostily angry with people who won't agree with his cooked up evidence! "Why, dagnabbit, I'll find the Evidence when we get to Eye-Rack! Meanwhile, make it up!"
________________________________________________________

The story in question did not quote a DC-based consultant (as hard as it may be to accept, some very good consultants don't live anywhere near Washington, which is a point in their favor).

This isn't the first time we have beaten other media to the punch on a story. As noted earlier, our stories on Clinton's women started a feeding frenzy. When Bill Powers of the National Journal called, his first comment was "damn, how did you get to them before we did?" The editor of U.S. News & World Report told Felicity Barringer of the New York Times that his reporters used Capitol Hill Blue as "an early warning sign of stories that were developing." I don't expect any of this to change your mind. You come from a partisan point of view. I don't. I also have nearly 20 years of working in and around Republican politics. That gives me sources that many reporters who have never worked the GOP side of the fence don't have.

You're welcome to your opinion but I won't get into a name-calling contest with you. Jim Robinson is a friend of mine and I worked to help him with the unjustified lawsuit against FR by the Post and L.A. Times. Trash me or CHB if you want but I do not, and will not, trash a fellow webmaster's site.

Doug

[rwfromkansas]

thank you.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Did you HAVE to do that? I had just gotten the rotten taste out of my mouth! LOL

[Doug Thompson]

QUOTE:
__________________________________________________________
Beyond what is alleged in this thread, the article on your website is false on its face. The White House admitting that something was shown to be untrue does not in any way shape or form mean that the White House admits Bush lied. As a matter of fact, the White House categorally denies lying. Your article lies.
________________________________________________________


In retrospect, you and others here make a valid point. The headline is technically incorrect because the White House made no such admission. I have edited the headline and the lead of the story to reflect that.

Doug

[justshe]

Now THAT is a post!

Kudos!

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

In retrospect, you and others here make a valid point. The headline is technically incorrect because the White House made no such admission. I have edited the headline and the lead of the story to reflect that.

It was an irresponsible thing to do in the first place, not unlike the nasty piece you wrote on President Bush a few months ago and ended up having to apologize for.

I think you have a big, fat agenda.

[trick question]

That is good to hear, although it does not do much for your credibility that you personally made such a poor editorial decision in the first place. Credibility is important to someone in your position, especially if you want people to take your word on a source.

Which brings back up the other part of my post. It would be very nice to have some way to verify any part of what Terry said. Names, dates, anything that can be used beyond the word of a personal friend who has already admitted to distorting the truth deliberately (that would be you).

[rwfromkansas]

For the record, I have found a "Terrence J Wilkinson" via an address search in Illinois. However, his first name is not spelled with an A, but an E.

I did locate a Terrance Wilkinson in VA via an e-mail search, but those e-mail searches don't give any info of worth except somebody is there.

[justshe]

In retrospect, you and others here make a valid point. The headline is technically incorrect because the White House made no such admission. I have edited the headline and the lead of the story to reflect that.

Doug

---

I have read your defense of your headline on this forum...and on your forum. I am curious, WHY would you edit the headline at THIS point? Not that I don't think you made the right decision, but it seems like you took an "unofficial" opinion poll, and have deigned to make the change.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

That is good to hear, although it does not do much for your credibility that you personally made such a poor editorial decision in the first place.

Actually, what he did could be characterized as lying.

[arasina]

Does Mr. Wilkinson know Scott Ritter?

I'm bad! I posted without having read the 100+ posts before mine.

[Doug Thompson]

QUOTE:
_______________________________________________________
It was an irresponsible thing to do in the first place, not unlike the nasty piece you wrote on President Bush a few months ago and ended up having to apologize for.

I think you have a big, fat agenda.
_______________________________________________________

I respect your opinion, but my only agenda is reporting the news. Yo may not agree with how I do it and that is certainly your choice. However, when I do screw up, I admit it. When people make me aware of debates that involve me or my various web sites, I always make myself available to those debates and respond to questions under my own name, never under an anonymous screen name. You may not like what I do or how I do it but I don't run from it or refuse to answer questions.

Doug

[CWOJackson]

Great job.

[Doug Thompson]

QUOTE:
__________________________________________________
I have read your defense of your headline on this forum...and on your forum. I am curious, WHY would you edit the headline at THIS point? Not that I don't think you made the right decision, but it seems like you took an "unofficial" opinion poll, and have deigned to make the change.
__________________________________________________

Not at all. Most of this debate took place late in the day and several readers of my web site (as well as some here) made the valid point that the headline was not technically correct. I have gone back and corrected stories that were days, weeks or even months old if somebody pointed out a mistake or convinced me that I was wrong. I'm not perfect. Nobody is. If I screw up, I admit it and try to fix it.

Doug

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

You may not like what I do or how I do it but I don't run from it or refuse to answer questions.

And you are to be commended for that - however, you're not naive, and you know how this works: People read what you say in the first place, and often miss the retraction.

This is the second time I've seen you take back your words, and I don't even read CHB.

I sincerely hope you will be more truthful in the future. Personally, I find your claim that "[your] only agenda is reporting the news" impossible to believe at this point.

[Doug Thompson]

QUOTE:
________________________________________________________

That's not to say that the next guy wouldn't be harder to find, but we do this a lot around here, and it very, very, rare that a person who plays above a certain level leaves absolutely no tracks. We hardly ever see it.
________________________________________________________

I concur and I understand why you do it. I spend a lot of time on Nexis as well (as my monthly bills attest) and I would do the same thing in your shoes. However, I am not going to risk a web site that has been a major part of my life since 1994 just to juice up a story. It's not the way I operate.

Doug

[Doug Thompson]

QUOTE:
____________________________________________________
Personally, I find your claim that "[your] only agenda is reporting the news" impossible to believe at this point.
____________________________________________________

As I said before, I respect your opinion. However, I believe that if you were a regular reader of CHB, you would feel differently (but then that is my opinion).

Thanks for your thoughts.

Doug