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.

[PhiKapMom]

I have always thought when the timing was right, the Bush Administration will lay down their cards and like you said -- Royal Flush right on the table!

At that point in time, the media will start looking for the next item to attack President Bush with! Doubt if they ever admit they were wrong!

[AGreatPer]

"Quite frankly, I believe probably there was other info he had which led Bush to believe the report was accurate."

I see where your coming from wanting to do something with this story. It potentially has long, long legs.

Personally, I wouldn't touch it because it is not verified. That said, I would stay on top of it.

So, let me sum up where you are going with the story. Your objective, should you decide to accept it is this, to find out if Bush got emotional and reacted "to the moment", wanted answers now, you know....blah, blah, blah. But most of all, did Bush make decisions based on emotions rather than fact? The proof of that could bring this Administration down.

BTW, I doubt it. Bush has proven to be too cool. But stranger things have happened.

One last point. Did you ever write up what you thought was a great and factual article and then pulled it because of your gut feeling? If so, your on your way to success.

[woodyinscc]

At that point in time, the media will start looking for the next item to attack President Bush with! Doubt if they ever admit they were wrong!

Have you noticed tho that Bush never has to get down in the dirt with them to expose their lies!! When you play poker, there is an old expression "Cards Talk"

[PhiKapMom]

I have noticed that! I wouldn't play poker with him! I know I would lose and lose big!

[AGreatPer]

rw. Do NOT run with this story at this point. Get another one.

[Freedom2specul8]

Thank you much for using the ping list. This is bookmarked for me to read later...

[rwfromkansas]

Oh I am not.....It would take a lot for me to actually run with this, including more than just e-mail contact...I won't be done in by a fake e-mail address etc. Furthermore, I would need another source at the meeting or I wouldn't print anything.

I just sent some questions for curiosity sake...I doubt he will even respond.

[rwfromkansas]

Right. Which means the Brits screwed up and misled Bush about the matter, but he had good grounds to trust the British intelligence, as they are our friends.

Good point.

[William McKinley]

If I screw up, I admit it and try to fix it.

Great! I assume that means you will be contacting the people at Japan Today then to get them to fix your screw up on their website as well?

[William McKinley]

See above.

[Doug Thompson]

QUOTE:
_____________________________________________________
If I screw up, I admit it and try to fix it.
Great! I assume that means you will be contacting the people at Japan Today then to get them to fix your screw up on their website as well?
_____________________________________________________


it's worse than that. I should have listened to you guys:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/943260/posts

[rwfromkansas]

Doug, put that up on your site. Journalists make mistakes......as long as you acknowledge it, and promise to make sure it doesn't happen again, fine.

But you must print a retraction and remove the story completely from your site and urge all other sites that picked it up to do the same.

[William McKinley]

Mr. Thompson, I am sorry it went down this way. I was skeptical of your intentions. The fact that you admitted what you just did shows my skepticism was misplaced.

Accept my apology.

[Spidey]

This is one of the worst examples of liberal media lies that I've ever seen.

Sure some here will say that you apologized so they'll forgive you.

Do you have any idea how much harm lies like this do to the country?

Do you have any idea how many people saw the first story, which was entitled "Bush Lies" and will never see your admission that it was you who printed lies?

I will never believe a word that comes from your site! Never!

[piasa]

bttt

[piasa]

Now that's interesting!

[Humidston]

Good catch (and later read) bump!

[Swordmaker]

But you must print a retraction and remove the story completely from your site and urge all other sites that picked it up to do the same.

I strongly disagree! The retraction should be printed... but the erroneous story should remain in place AS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED with a LARGE preface added containing the retraction, the lack of provenance of the source, and the mea culpas of the author.

To REMOVE the article smacks more of cover-up and avoidance of responsibility. There are unknowable numbers of copies of the original article now circulating around the internet... and many people will see them and believe them. By leaving the original in place WITH the entire sordid story of fraud and reportorial gullability would at least allow those trying to track down the truth to have the ultimate source intact.

This story, fraudulent as it is, is now also part of history and the evidence of HOW it happened and how it was exposed should not be eliminated. In fact, William McKinley's thread on FR should be included.

Doug Thompson indicates on another FR thread that he has gone back and removed all other articles that used information from this tainted source... again, I believe they SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED but left in place with appropriate warnings that they are not to be given weight AND linking to this current article.

We need to correct our mistakes... AND let them be examples... if we are to learn anything from them.

[Libertina]

Kudos for your sleuthing, sir! Very interestng set of events here.

[Cultural Jihad]

TLBSHOW was here on FreeRepublic for about two weeks when his words here were being picked up and quoted across the world. I remember in particular a French language e-zine quoting something he had said, and there were a couple of others.