Dissension In The Ranks

< Yawn >

SO...#318

"We have problems but the Democrats are not the answer".. and Bush is? okay.

"NOBODY expected Dubya to advocate an Amnesty Plan because it's patently liberal."

Not only is it that, but it fixes nothing, as witnessed by the increase in illegal immigration after RR's "one time" amnesty back in 1986.

Here is a taste of how wrong-headed Bush's "guest worker" proposal is:
Bush {Immigration Proposal} Promotes Law Breaking
Bush's Amnesty Plan Triggers Jump in Illegal Immigration
BUSH PLAN A MAGNET:Immigrants cite lure of border proposal

They don't understand anything at all about government or poltics. Wining is NOT their goal.I have been saything just what you did, for many years here and they never have a breply; valid or otherwise.

Great cartoon, BTW. LOL

Indeed..and it is reciprocated.

I think at least a dozen may be right here.

I suspect the all maybe right here this go around... From what I see and hear they aren't making a hard effort on the National level but in some selected local stuff.... which is what they ought to be doing anyway....

The Constitution Party isn't a player this year, imo. I'm going to vote CP this year because Bush... fill in the blank... is a talking point they are using...... Ask about them in a national poll an unless you get a political junkie on the line most will not even know who they are.....

You're delusional.

I beg your pardon. I am a registered REPUBLICAN who voted for Bush, Dole, Bush, Reagan.. and straight ticket in my state. AND for your information I am a TRADITIONAL CONSERVATIVE that fully intends on NOT voting for Bush based upon HIS actions. Period.

So as a "REPUBLICAN" and a "TRADITIONAL CONSERVATIVE", which of Bush's actions do you hold against him the most?

Not signing onto Kyoto?

Stopping federal funding of abortions?

Refusing to sign on to U.N. Crimes Court?

Outlawing partial birth abortion?

Repealing OSHA's new ergonomic regulations that were about to put every home-based business in America out of commission?

By Executive Order (EO), reversed Clinton's policy of not requiring parental consent for abortions under the Medical Privacy Act?

Canceling the ABM treaty with the defunct USSR, and refunding our National Missile Defense program?

Reducing taxes on dividends and capital gains?

Restoring irrigation water to Klamath Falls farmers?

His support for faith based initiatives?

His tax cuts?

His war on TERROR - Taking it to the enemy?

You think Gore would have done any of these things?

The idea that some so-called conservatives would rather give us a Democrat President than vote for Bush, just because they don't get everything they want is really sad.

"So why are we there?"

Or, do you mean to ask, "Why did we attack Iraq?

I heard a high-level Israeli diplomat say a few weeks ago that the removal of the Hussein regime in Iraq has done more for peace in the Middle East than any event in 1,000 years. This was credited to the degree it was because democracy among the Islamic nations has never been a possibility until the fall of Saddam.

I spoke this week with a US Army Captain who just returned from Baghdad a week ago. He stated to me the conditions in Iraq and the receptiveness by Iraqis to our soldiers are much, much better than we hear or see in our media.

Our efforts in Iraq have been nothing but phenomenal and we were well on our way there (and hopefully still are) of making major progress.

This could have been a major, major victory for Bush and could have easily carried him over the hump this November.

Why on earth Bush went over to the tool shed, pulled out the heaviest monkey wrench and threw it into the machine nine months before the election will be a question asked for decades to come.

This time two weeks ago, division was practically nonexistent. Throw in an amnesty program (because that is exactly what it is) into the works and all hell breaks loose.

And it's only been two short weeks since Bush did this and he has shattered (yes, I'm talking about George Bush here) Party Unity into splinters and cost himself crucial support right down to the wire.

All politics is local has meaning.

Just another trip down memory lane with it comes to the World famous Doug Thompson:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/943908/posts?q=1&&page=1#1

Games People Play
7/10/03 | William McKinley

Posted on 07/10/2003 3:39:47 PM PDT by William McKinley
Edited on 07/10/2003 5:27:44 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

Games People Play

By William McKinley

"If I promise you the Moon and the Stars, Would you believe it?

Games people play in the middle of the night" - Alan Parsons Project, "Games People Play"

The recent fiasco experienced by the New York Times over the creative writing exploits of Jayson Blair should have served as a warning to journalists to be careful over the information they publish. A news outfit depends upon its credibility, just as surely as our society depends upon news reporting in order for people to make judgments over their own governance. Yet it appears that some lessons are not easily learned, as was recently demonstrated by some events which are to this moment still unfolding.

Doug Thompson has been involved in journalism for decades. According to his biography, he has won awards for his reporting and his commentary, and he has worked as Press Secretary for a few members of Congress. He runs a news and commentary webzine called Capitol Hill Blue. Chris Betros is the editor of Japan Today, an English Internet news publication based in Tokyo. Both men find themselves in an uncomfortable position for a journalist, where the story becomes partly about them. I can best describe William Rivers Pitt as a propagandist and a left wing agitator. On July 8th, a sequence of events commenced involving all three that demonstrates that in the aftermath of Jayson Blair, the field of journalism still has not immunized itself from the ministrations of charlatans.

"Things that they say, Honor Brite..."

On July 8th, Capitol Hill Blue published a story titled "White House Admits Bush Lied About Iraqi Nukes". The bold headline was backed by an equally assertive lead-in, which stated "After weeks of denial, the White House Monday finally admitted President Bush lied in his January State of the Union Address when he claimed Iraq had sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa." This assertion went far beyond what other news organizations were reporting, which was that the Bush administration had admitted that the claim made in the State of the Union Address was based on information the President later found to be unreliable. There were other eye-raising details in the story, however.

The article quoted a "CIA advisor" named Terrance J. Wilkinson, claiming he had been present at two White House briefings attended by the President. "The report had already been discredited," the story quoted Wilkinson as stating. "This point was clearly made when the president was in the room during at least two of the briefings" said Wilkinson, who claimed Bush responded in anger. "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," the Capitol Hill Blue story continued Wilkinson's quote. "He said he knew the story was true and so would the world after American troops secured the country." Wilkinson claimed to have written "numerous memos" questioning the use of "intelligence information that we knew to be from dubious sources." While American troops continue to search Iraq for a smoking gun regarding weapons of mass destruction, these allegations, if true, would be the smoking gun the left wing of American politics has been searching for in their quest to discredit the Bush administration.

On Free Republic, a website where conservatives dissect and debate the news, some people (including this author) started to question the story. The White House admitted Bush lied? Where could such an admission be found? And who is Terrance J. Wilkinson? Searches using various Internet tools such as Google were coming up empty. Doug Thompson joined in the discussion to defend his work and his publication. "The use of the word 'lied' has also sparked some controversy on the Capitol Hill Blue forum as well. It was my decision to use the word. Wilkinson did not accuse the President of lying. I did, based on information from other sources (who would not go on the record) that Bush was told outright that the information had been discredited before the State of the Union address but that he chose to use it anyway. To me that was a lie and I chose to use it in the headline and the lead of the story." Thompson admitted that he chose such a strong accusation because "I'm mad. Bush didn't have to use a discredited claim to justify the war with Iraq." However, Thompson admitted, "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." Thompson republished the article with the word 'lied' changed to 'wrong' in the headline, and the lead-in changed similarly. But what about Terrance J. Wilkinson? Thompson stood by his man. "I've known Terry Wilkinson for 20+ years and his decision to go public was a painful one that I'm sure will bring recriminations."

"Ain't gonna spend the rest of my life, Quietly fading away..."

The genie was out of the bottle at this point. On July 9th, Japan Today published the same exact story as Capitol Hill Blue, verbatim, crediting the story to TruthOut. Within hours, the Google News compilation service had it as the head story in its grouping of the news reports about the White House admission that the Niger intelligence was unreliable. I contacted Japan Today, and in a series of emails with Mr. Betros, I informed him that Capitol Hill Blue had backed off of some of the assertions in the article, and further that there was reason to doubt the existence of the Mr. Wilkinson quoted in the story. This information was news to Mr. Betros, as he was completely unaware of Thompson and of Capitol Hill Blue. He informed me that Japan Today had obtained the story from TruthOut, to which his organization subscribes, and which had presented the story as their own. Betros acted quickly to verify what I was telling him, apparently realizing that the credibility of his news organization could be impacted.

Meanwhile, Thompson was starting to have some doubts of his own. Responding to criticism from readers, he decided to pass along some questions to Wilkinson to start the process of substantiating some of the claims made. To his horror, he started to realize that he had been had. "I tried calling Terry's phone number. I got a recorded message from a wireless phone provider saying the number was no longer in service. I tried a second phone number I had for him. Same result" Thompson related. After checking with some other sources within the administration, the CIA, and Capitol Hill, according to Thompson, he realized "that someone has been running a con on me for 20 some years and I fell for it like a little old lady in a pigeon drop scheme." He published a complete retraction and apology, and contacted a lawyer to assist him in minimizing the damage. For several years, Thompson said, he had been using Wilkinson as an unnamed source in his reporting, sometimes as a single source: "over time, I came to depend on him as a source without additional backup."

"Things that they say, Just don't make it right..."

He was not the only one working to undo things. Betros contacted Thompson, and decided to pull from their publication the story. "We had [been deceived] too," said Betros, "because we subscribe to truthout.org and publish their stuff from time to time and being over here in Japan, we don't have the resources to check the veracity of articles we take from overseas... I will however think twice before using any more truthout.org stories after today." He stated that Japan Today would be publishing Thompson's mea culpa.

Despite all the efforts, as of midday July 10th, Google News searches were still turning up the original story's headline and lead in.

How The Google News Search Appeared at 11:00 EDT, July 9
White House admits Bush lied about Iraqi nukes
Japan Today, Japan - 21 hours ago
WASHINGTON — After weeks of denial, the White House Monday finally admitted President
George Bush lied in his January State of the Union Address when he ...
White House admits mistake about Iraq's nukes - Indian Express
US denies Blair's claims about Saddam's nukes - Independent Online
Of Mice and (Con) Men - Democratic Underground

The story also managed to get discussed on CNN. As CNS News noted, Aaron Brown mentioned the news story circulating "that there was at some point a conversation between the president and a CIA consultant where the consultant directly told the president that this African uranium deal was bogus." David Ensor told Brown the story sounded suspect to him, but millions of ears had the seed planted in their heads by the mention. [As an addendum, the Media Research Center points out that Brown's comments were made over four hours after Thompson's retraction.] TruthOut was undoubtedly pleased.

"Games people play in the middle of the night..."

Meanwhile, TruthOut was apparently working to cover some tracks. They removed a copy of the story they had posted on their website, putting in its place at the exact same URL a copy of a Washington Post article. As was captured over at Free Republic, however, their search engine's cache provided evidence that they did have the story up at one time. Later, they published a copy of Thompson's retraction, with the following editorial note provided by William Rivers Pitt:

Yesterday, truthout's lead story carried an article by Capitol Hill Blue that quoted a 'CIA insider.' This insider, a Terrance J. Wilkinson, was reportedly present at two briefings when Bush was informed of, and then dismissed, evidence that his Iraq WMD claims were false. Capitol Hill Blue has run a retraction of that story, which we have printed below. According to Doug Thompson, author of the original story, Terrance J. Wilkinson does not exist, and Thompson has been getting scammed for over 20 years. Something about this story is decidedly strange, but in light of Thompson's retraction, we would be remiss not to run it. I am running down my contacts at CIA and Capitol Hill Blue to find out how all of this took place. We will let you know when we know. - wrp

On TruthOut, Pitt made no mention of how they came to possess the Capitol Hill Blue article to begin with, or why they had sold it to Japan Today without attribution. However, he was not silent on the issue, stating "Japan Today got it from us. I guess they 'stole' it, too since they never asked permission." Something clearly is "decidedly strange" about this story, especially considering that it deals with the run-up to the war with Iraq and since Pitt co-authored a book with former weapons inspector Scott Ritter titled War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You To Know. Ritter was vocal throughout the media attempting to discredit the Bush administration's Iraq positions in the run up to the war.

The fact that Thompson allowed himself to be used to spread false propaganda regarding the administration is somewhat surprising. Earlier this year, Thompson had broken a story prior to the commencement of hostilities in Iraq that he claimed detailed plans by Democrats for undermining the administration after the war:

"Writers and broadcasters friendly to the Democratic cause have already been provided talking points... Capitol Hill Blue obtained a copy of the talking points... The talking points outline a strategy to raise public doubts of the President's real intentions, including: ...--Claiming the Bush administration has "manufactured" evidence against Saddam Hussein and used that evidence to encourage Britain and other allies to join the American fight against Iraq;"

"If I'm telling you the truth right now, Do you believe it..."

So who is Terrance J. Wilkinson, and does he even exist? Doug Thompson claims that the person who identified himself as Wilkinson approached him first when he worked for former Congressman Manuel Lujan of New Mexico. "He seemed to know a lot about the nuclear labs in New Mexico and said he had conducted 'security profiles' for both Los Alamos and Sandia National Labs", Thompson related. Congressman Lujan served on the committee charged with oversight of both labs, and according to Thompson, Wilkinson offered to be involved in assisting them in briefings. "He said he had helped other Republican members of Congress I called some friends in other GOP offices and they said yes, they knew Terry Wilkinson. 'You can trust him, he's one of the good guys,' one chief of staff told me." said Thompson.

If Thompson's claims are accurate, then this paints some disturbing pictures. Which members of Congress were using Wilkinson, and for what purpose? To what information was this person gaining access, and what information was he injecting into the process along the way? At this point, Thompson has become mum, declining to assist me further in finding out more about the identity of Wilkinson, at the advice of his attorney.

The lessons here are plentiful. The news is full of stories, every day, which contain unnamed sources. People gobble up such details at face value, assuming that reporters have exercised due diligence. As Mr. Betros admitted, however, many publications do not have the resources to perform such verifications, and as the Jayson Blair situation demonstrated, those that do can sometimes fail to do so adequately. Publishers are also human, and despite their claims of impartiality bias can impact decisions, as clearly occurred with Mr. Thompson. I wonder how much of Mr. Thompson's anger at the Bush administration was formed by incorrect information being funneled to him by people like the vaporous Mr. Wilkinson. I do not wonder, however, if publication decisions are made, every day, based on information being peddled actively by propagandists with agendas. Clearly, this is a game some people play. We have to take it, or leave it.

William McKinley is a pseudonym. He can be found blogging away on the Internet every day.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/943908/posts?q=1&&page=1#1

"You mean fringe conservatives who think that Kerry is better than Bush and go apopletic when the truth is held up to them."

Don't say you haven't gotten the memo -- here's "the truth":

1) Dubya Bush has adopted a liberal open border plan in the middle of fighting a so-called "War On Terror." That's right -- calling ALL Al Qaeda. The Mexican border is a sieve.

2) He has proposed adopting another liberal plan: Rewarding those who illegally invader the United States of America with Amnesty AND potential citizenship.

3) The so-called "fringe conservatives" supports enforcing the Constitution, while noting the serious compromising of it's tenets.

You?? You are displaying extreme characteristics of a lemming at the cliff's edge, and unobjective political adherent to a cult of personality.

Do you really want to resemble that animal?

What is sad is that you seem concentrate on the 'bones' thrown to Conservatives and refuse to see the larger picture and the issues with truly disasterous results but each of us have to make our own decisions based on what is important to them.. what is important to me is the future .. the legacy we will be leaving to our children and at the moment, it's one that I see as very bright.

You are displaying extreme characteristics of a lemming at the cliff's edge, and unobjective political adherent to a cult of personality.

Do you really want to resemble that animal?

No, I don't want to follow your lead.

"it's one that I see as ~~very bright~~ not very bright"

"It certainly has sucked for those of us who live on the border."

Of course for those of some out there who live in gated communities, stroll the middle-America suburban malls, and ante up at the country club every Saturday, you live faaaar away Jack.

I hear ya my friend...

ALLOW A DEMOCRAT TO WIN>>>THAT"LL SHOW EM!

Well I hate to post this, cause the GOP sucks, but we are at war, it is a strange war for sure and I think we should be more aggressive in fighting it but,

Truman: Gave us limited war where we don't fight to win we fight to maintain the status quo ... anybody want to die maintaining the status quo?

Kennedy ... good CIC

LBJ [spit], another Truman only worse, gave us Vietnam, another status quo war. Would not let us win!

Charter, the freaking Iranians took US embassy staff hostage! If ever we needed to go to war that was it. And what did Charter do? Killed US forces is a jerk off, hair brained rescue attempt, then he surrendered.

Clinton, we all know what a [bs] great CIC [/bs] Clinton was.

So as bad as Bush is, and he sucks, we can't allow a Rat to screw us like just about ever other Rat has. If we were not at war I'd be leading the dump Bush parade but we are at war and war is hell, and it is hell supporting Bush. I don't like it one damn bit.

Still think this Bush rage is pretty much Dems and journalists taking down a Republican that is trying to inject private solutions and tax cuts into the government monster.

Every dollar spent by Government ends up as less than a dime of output. There are several instances of Bush getting private companies and processes involved, even as the spending gets scary. It is a big economy and it can't be changed overnight. We have over 70 years of mistakes to cover.

Are there tax cuts folks?

Tax cuts and private solutions will cut the deficit. It's not obvious yet. Capital gains are revenue for the government. Stock market gains are obvious. They bring in the revenue, always. That already happened.