Did Capitol Hill Blue Post An Article With Fabrications?

Me ^

[AGreatPer]

There is no reason for your post to be removed. This still scares the heck out of me:

"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."

This scares me if the Pres went with it on his own judgement rather than true info. This could be monumental if there is another witness than Wilkenson.

william McKinley, you are just doing what we're supposed to do here, find the truth.

[William McKinley]

Yeah, well, we will see what comes up when the followup gets written.

As for what is scaring you, I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it. A President who would be ruthless enough to act in the manner described would also be ruthless enough to make sure some evidence was found once we secured the country; in other words, he would have planted it. The fact that we haven't found anything tells me Bush is not that Machiavellian, and the described conversation never happened.

If Thompson is telling the truth, then that tells me that Wilkinson is lying.

[onyx]

Since "doug is one of the good guys" (and I DO believe you) then his source, the elusive Mr. Wilkenson, might not be a good guy, (source). Right? If I'm out in left field, please bring me home. :-)

[PhiKapMom]

Dang!

[swheats]

So why such a strong headline from us? Because I'm mad.

I'm amazed the notoriety you receive after writing from anger about Bush. This article and the "Madman of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue" seems to have given you much press on FR.

Damages your credibility and your sources because you've thrown impartiality and unbiased opinion out the window.

[PhiKapMom]

Good catch! I noticed the same thing -- the word "lie" remains in the first paragraph!

[William McKinley]

He's changed it now.

[PhiKapMom]

Personally I don't believe the CIA source at all. First of all he leaked information that is highly classified so why would I trust him. Second that is not President Bush's nature to go with something that is not verified! You have to remember his Dad was CIA Director so he learned from his Dad!

This story smelled before Thompson came on this thread and it smells now!

[PhiKapMom]

I know but I don't like the fact he did it in the first place -- any first year journalism student would know better than to do a headline and first paragraph like he did. Makes no sense to me and my believeability meter is going wild.

[Sloth]

Does Mr. Wilkinson know Scott Ritter?

In the Biblical sense, perhaps.

[Miss Marple]

I agree with those who are suspicious. I realize he helped Jim during the Post lawsuit, but that has nothing to do with this issue. At the time that lawsuit was filed, we did not even know who was going to be the Republican nominee in 2000.

It is conceivable to me that someone who helped Jim with the lawsuit might have had a divergent path since then. Given the "Madman of Pennsylvania Avenue" article posted earlier this year, and given the twisted headline which originally led this article, I give Capitol Blue zero credibility on this issue.

[William McKinley]

I said it before- to believe that Bush basically made crap up to go to war means one believes Bush would tamper with evidence, and would have assistance from many in the administration, yet believe that once we took control over Iraq, Bush would not tamper with evidence.

I firmly believe that if Bush were the type to manufacture evidence before hand, he would be the type to manufacture evidence afterwards. Yet we have not found the 'smoking gun' every peacenick has been demanding. We would have, if Bush were the Machiavellian manipulator they want us to believe he is.

And the war was justified without us finding a single thing. But that's a whole other ball of wax.

[b4its2late]

...the same thing, over and over, everywhere!!!

LOL! You're right.

[PhiKapMom]

Count me in with that same "zero" credibility! I am with you 100%!

I used to subscribe to CHB's email until Thompson went totally anti-Bush with no sourcing and putting out crap I knew not to be true! That did it for me!

[Senator Pardek]

Is this the death knell of humor at FR? Not even a guffaw - we've been here too long.

[Senator Pardek]

Meant for you - I guess the question has been answered.

[LurkerNoMore!]

Is this the death knell of humor at FR?

I thought the same thing about THIS

[William McKinley]

They don't write 'em like that any more

[LurkerNoMore!]

It is an end of an era.

[dogbyte12]

There is a difference between a smoking gun, say a videotape, and hearing it from your Uncle Charlie who is an in patient at Belleview. Anything in the middle, you have to rely on hunches, experience, and analysis.

My hunch is that some evidence was in the middle, and we didn't know that is was false, but we didn't have a smoking gun that it was true. Knowing what we did about Hussein in the past, we didn't give any benefit of the doubt to him when it was gray, and we believed the worst.

Is that wrong? I don't think so. Saddam is a guy who gasses his neighbors, and an ethnic minority in his own nation, and has attempted a nuclear program in the past. You get unconfirmed reports that he is attempting to buy Uranium. So, you believe it to be true, just on what you know of his last behaviour. The mistake, as it appears to be, is in not using more careful language. Saying, "Saddam is buying uranium from Africa", and saying "We have reports that Saddam is attempting to buy uranium from Africa, and we believe it based on his past track record", are two different animals. I think the White House has acknowledged the mistake they made in their emphasis on the "smoking gun" nature of their evidence.

If we poopooed the reports, and Saddam tossed a dirty bomb at our troops, it would leak out that we got these reports. Can anybody imagine the circular firing squad that would occur in that event?