Posted on 07/09/2003 4:04:00 PM PDT by Doug Thompson
Wilson claims he was sent to Niger by the Vice Presidents office, and yet he says he reported back to the State Department or the Cia, I can't remember which, but anyways, why would he report to anyone other than the Vice Presidents office if they were who sent him on this mission.
Something is really smelly about that story as well.
Then we have this guy Thielmann who is described a retired director of State Department weapons intel,(or something like that), in many news outlets, and in other publications they call him a retired staffer from the State Department.
My head is spinning :-)
At the bottom, it attributed the article to Truthout.
Doug's Apology Letter of 7/9/03 stated: "When I left politics and returned to journalism, Wilkinson became a willing, but always unnamed source.
During 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."
From this, I infer quite a time span of source use for the elusive Wilkinson, but only the last couple of years in INTELLIGENCE.
From Doug's follow-up letter of 7/10/03 regarding unnamed sources:
Doug's source was used 7 times in CHB, from 7/02 until 7/03. He was unnamed in 6, and he was named Terrance J. Wilkinson in one. Note that 6 stories only were removed from the CHB database, dealing with INTELLIGENCE.
If Wilkinson were used as a source over the 20 years, those stories seem not to have been deleted; only those dealing with INTELLIGENCE.
And this means ... ??
Now he said it is "almost like we don't want to catch terrorists". What the HELL (excuse my language) is he talking about? In a way it was a reference to the clinton years, but he is definitely implying that the Bush administration is carrying on the same policy, which is demonstrably false.
ROFLMAO
Exactly what I was thinking. I've also been pondering on who the "she" is (the "friend on the Hill" in Thompson's retraction) who allegedly said Wilkinsen is bogus. Any ideas?
The MTV teens helped Doctor Raoul "Freep" the NY Times after the Jayson Blair story broke. Rush, Sean, FN...FR are reaching people, but the mainstream propagandists are able to control the agenda because they not only control the American mainstream newsmedia - they are global. The Dems. aren't going left because their base is leaving them, or because the GOP is moving left, they're siding with the EU and international global organizations - for POWER'S sake.
When Pfaw and the NAACP protest Miguel Estrada, they have the endorsement of Castro, Chavez and Chirac. When the DNC-press pushes yet another socialist program, they receive free international positive press - and support, both political and $$$.
Clinton intentionally undermined our sovereignty by giving the UN and international NGOs unprecidented say in US international policy. Hillary continues her husband's 'work' - pledging her loyalty (and the loyalty of the Dem. party) to the international socialists - even as the President works to strengthen alliances with nations outside the influence of Chirac, Kofi, EU...and Clinton. They have a mighty pen. They will join together to intentionally undermine America on the world stage - for power's sake, even after 9-11.
Divide and conquer is their specialty. I'll support the wimpiest Republican if he's the only one willing to run - to get a 60 vote majority in the Senate. Changing "hearts and minds" won't happen overnight.
The Republican Party was formed to prevent the expansion of slavery into the west before the Civil War. Republicans went south to help free the slaves, and they were lynched along with the slaves they helped free - by the DEM. Ku Klux Klan. Dred Scott was a Dem. response to the GOP fight against slavery. This is all documented in spades. Yet, our press, our schools, our entertainment establishment has the power to keep the myth of Republican racism alive for all these decades. It started with the Communist Party.
Ann Coulter's right.
Weren't there articles about how Clinton himself rallied European opposition to the war during a tour, which cited several of his phrases criticising Bush showing up as quotes from foreign leaders?
After reading all of this thread, the only thing that leads me to believe that Terrence J Wilkerson isn't made-up, is that there are several posts which have shown very like anonymous sources that have hit other newspapers over the last month with apparently false mysterious insight. Mr. Thompson could still have made up an anonymous source that sounds like common quotes, but it gives me pause.
Rush is going to be at another one of his "super secret" meetings. Roger Hedgecock will be filling in.
I'm sooooo tired of reading liberal papers that quote an unnamed Republican who is "oh so ready" to trash other Republicans. I seriously doubt most liberal reporters are close trusting friends with the Republicans they love to trash.
Ever notice how all the "mistakes and lies" type press scandals are written about conservatives or groups aligned with conservatives? The other press lie category is hyping a liberal cause and victim group to make them look more needy and pathetic. ( Burning churches - 8 year old heroin addicts).
Has anyone seen a false story that trashed a liberal? Or made a liberal group look bad?
I suspect, like the Nazi press, they're careful when reporting about fellow liberals (Nazis), but not to careful when reporting about conservatives (Jews). Double standard?
I'm sooooo tired of reading liberal papers that quote an unnamed Republican who is "oh so ready" to trash other Republicans. I seriously doubt most liberal reporters are close trusting friends with the Republicans they love to trash.
Ever notice how all the "mistakes and lies" type press scandals are written about conservatives or groups aligned with conservatives? The other press lie category is hyping a liberal cause and victim group to make them look more needy and pathetic. ( Burning churches - 8 year old heroin addicts).
Has anyone seen a false story that trashed a liberal? Or made a liberal group look bad?
I suspect, like the Nazi press, they're careful when reporting about fellow liberals (Nazis), but not to careful when reporting about conservatives (Jews). Double standard?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.