White House admits Bush wrong about Iraqi nukes

Capitol Hill Blue ^ | July 8, 2003

[cwb]

By the way...there is also a big difference between questioning the veracity of intelligence information and the outright accusations of lying. I have no problem with an honest appraisal of intelligence failures, but what has been happening here...not only from the Democrats, but from our objective media, is far from an honest appraisal of events.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

What did George not know, and when did he not know it?

[DoughtyOne]

On the one hand I'm getting really tired of the Dems looking for any way to damn Bush. On the other, it really gauled me to listen to Bush's speach today. When will we ever put slavery behind us as a nation? I can see it now, "The President visited the first nation on his tour of Africa today, and called the US role in slavery one of the worst crimes in history." March 17, 2982.

[tdadams]

How is it that everyone sees and responds to #3 but misses #19? Geesh!

[Jorge]

He didn't "LIE". He made a false statement based on poor intelligence.

Thank you. Calling this a deliberate lie is about as credible as the reports claiming Bush was killing us by putting arsenic in the water.

[grania]

White House admits Bush wrong about Iraqi nukes

I went to the article, and this is the actual title. It's quite different from saying he lied. Why the title change?

[A. Pole]

I hope for Bush's sake and the GOP's sake this guy Wilkinson is not credible. If he is, and if others back him up, then Bush is probably a very deep trouble.

Maybe not. People have short memory and other problems will attract their attention.

[A. Pole]

If Bush lied, well at least he toppled one of the world's first class jerks in the process, and isn't that what we wanted?

Is it? Acquiring a cranky nation of 25 million as a new basket case is what we wanted? Clintonian hit and run policy starts to look attractive by comparison.

[1Old Pro]

Actually, he made a true statement:

Yep, you are correct, thx

[cwb]

"Is it? Acquiring a cranky nation of 25 million as a new basket case is what we wanted? Clintonian hit and run policy starts to look attractive by comparison."

It does? Bosnia certainly wasn't a hit-and-run, as we are still there, keeping the various groups from destroying each other. And I'd hardly call the 78-day aerial bombardment of Serbia/Kosovo a hit-and-run venture, as we are still there as well. I'll grant you Afghanistan and Sudan but the problem there was we didn't "hit" anything of significance...and only pissed-off Osama because we didn't follow up. Thus, we "ran" a little too early...just as we did in Somalia and Haiti.

We have become a fast-food country that expects instant success and gratification, even in our wars. This just isn't reality...especially when we are dealing with a group that is probably the biggest threat to this country. The problem with this enemy is that he/she doesn't care if he dies for the cause. And unlike imperial Japan who had similar zealots, this enemy doesn't confine himself to a soverign nation that can be targeted. We had better get as serious about killing this enemy as they are about killing us. If not, we will lose.

[kapj]

This is not good.

Engineers that oversee the Dept .of Energy 's uranium centrifuge program were given the intel on the Iraqi aluminum tubes before the war.

They unanimously concluded that the tubes in question were not in any way (size, strength, metallurcial characteristics) suitable for use in uranium gas centrifuges.

I read this somewhere recently - I will try to find the link.

Hopefully this too is bogus. If it is not, however, we are in some really deep doo doo.

[cyncooper]

To complete the record:

BREAKING: Conned big time "CIA Witness" to White House Lying about Intel story found to be FRAUD

Excerpt:

"You've been had," she said. "I know about this guy. He's been around for years, claiming to have been in Special Forces, with the CIA, with NSA. He hasn't worked for any of them and his name is not Terrance Wilkinson."

Both of his phone numbers have Los Angeles area codes but an identity check through Know-X today revealed no record of anyone named Terrance J. Wilkinson ever having lived in LA or surrounding communities.

[William McKinley]

As it turns out, I was right. Wilkinson is not credible

[america-rules]

"Wilkinson is not credible"

Right but there are over 50 articles on Google citing the origional article saying Bush lied - Think they will correct it?

[TaxRelief]

Is it my imagination, or has the originally posted article been rewritten (without a time stamp change)?

After weeks of denial, the White House Monday finally admitted President Bush was wrong in his January State of the Union Address when he claimed Iraq had sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa.

The acknowledgment came as a British parliamentary commission questioned the reliability of British intelligence about Saddam Hussein's efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to the war in Iraq.

Bush said in his State of the Union address that the British government had learned that Saddam recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa.

The president's statement was incorrect because it was based on forged documents from the African nation of Niger, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer acknowledged.

These paragraphs have been deleted:

An intelligence consultant who was present at two White House briefings where the uranium report was discussed confirmed that the President was told the intelligence was questionable and that his national security advisors urged him not to include the claim in his State of the Union address.

"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."

And these have been added:

A British parliamentary committee has also concluded that Prime Minister Tony Blair's government mishandled intelligence material on Iraqi weapons.

John Stanley, a Conservative member of the committee, said so far no evidence has been found in Iraq to substantiate four key claims, including that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa as part of an effort to restart a nuclear weapons program.

The International Atomic Energy Agency told the United Nations in March that the information about uranium was based on forged documents.

Yet the time stamp still says Jul 8, 2003, 01:29. What gives, Doug? Why is there no acknowledgement of a revision on the original article page? Isn't there some sort of ethics code that journalists are supposed to adhere to when they make changes to articles?

[FairOpinion]

I think this article should be read by all on this thread: Wilkerson, who claimed to have been present at Bush's briefing is a fraud.

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


BREAKING: Conned big time "CIA Witness" to White House Lying about Intel story found to be FRAUD
Capitol Hill Blue ^ | July 9, 2003 | Doug Thompson


Posted on 07/09/2003 4:04 PM PDT by Doug Thompson

Damn, I hate it when I've been had and I've been had big time.

In 1982, while I was working for Congressman Manuel Lujan of New Mexico, a man came up to a me during a gathering in Albuquerque and introduced himself as Terrance J. Wilkinson. He said he was a security consultant and gave me a business card with his name and just a Los Angeles phone number.

A few weeks later, he called my Washington office and asked to meet for lunch. 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. Lujan served on the committee with oversight on both labs and he offered his services if we ever needed briefings.

We already had nuclear experts on the committee, on loan from the Department of Energy, and we never used Wilkinson for briefings but we kept in touch over the years. He said he had served in Vietnam with Army Special Force, worked for Air America, later for the FBI and as a consultant for the CIA. 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. When I left politics and returned to journalism, Wilkinson became a willing, but always unnamed, source.

Over the last couple of years, Wilkinson served as either a primary or secondary source on a number of stories that have appeared in Capitol Hill Blue regarding intelligence activities. In early stories, I collaborated his information with at least one more source. His information usually proved accurate and, over time, I came to depend on him as a source without additional backup.

On Tuesday, we ran a story headlined "White House admits Bush wrong about Iraqi nukes." For the first time, Wilkinsson said he was willing to go on the record and told a story about being present, as a CIA contract consultant, at two briefings with Bush. He said he was retired now and was fed up and wanted to go public.

"He (Bush) 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 in our story. "He said he knew the story was true and so would the world after American troops secured the country."

After the story ran, we received a number of emails or phone calls that (1) either claimed Wilkinson was lying or (2) doubted his existence. I quickly dismissed the claims. After all, I had known this guy for 20+ years and had no doubt about his credibility. Some people wanted to talk to him, so I forwarded those requests on to him via email. He didn't answer my emails, which I found odd. I should have listened to a bell that should have been going off in my ear.

Today, a White House source I know and trust said visitor logs don't have any record of anyone named Terrance J. Wilkinson ever being present at a meeting with the President. Then a CIA source I trust said the agency had no record of a contract consultant with that name. "Nobody, and I mean nobody, has ever heard of this guy," my source said.

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.

Then a friend from the Hill called.

"You've been had," she said. "I know about this guy. He's been around for years, claiming to have been in Special Forces, with the CIA, with NSA. He hasn't worked for any of them and his name is not Terrance Wilkinson."

Both of his phone numbers have Los Angeles area codes but an identity check through Know-X today revealed no record of anyone named Terrance J. Wilkinson ever having lived in LA or surrounding communities.

His email address turns out to be a blind forward to a free email service where anyone can sign up and get an email account. Because it was not one of the usual "free" services like Hotmail, Yahoo or such, I did not recognize it as one (although you'd think that someone like me would have known better).

The bottom line is 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. I've spent the last two hours going through the database of Capitol Hill Blue stories and removing any that were based on information from Wilkinson (or whoever he is). I've also removed his name, quotes and claims from Tuesday's story about the White House and the uranium claims.

Erasing the stories doesn't erase the fact that we ran articles containing informattion that, given the source, were most likely inaccurate. And it doesn't erase the sad fact that my own arrogance allowed me to be conned.

It will be a long time (and perhaps never) before I trust someone else who comes forward and offers inside information. The next one who does had better be prepared to produce a birth certificate, a driver's license and his grandmother's maiden name.

Any news publication exists on the trust of its readers. Because I depended on a source that was not credible, I violated the trust that the readers of Capitol Hill Blue placed in me.

I was wrong. I am sorry.