NO BASIS for Washington Post story About Powell resignation . It's TOTALLY FALSE

Drudge ^ | Aug. 4, 2003 | Drudge

[FairOpinion]

"This "story" was deliberately planted to weaken Bush IMO. "

---

I am sure you are right. Some unnamed source relating a conversation that never took place.

Sounds familiar? That's what happened when Doug Thompson of Capital Hill Blue quoted his unnamed source who claimed he was present at a conversation where Bush told them to falsify the Iraq data or something along those line. The left is so anxious to get anything about Bush, that they print anything, without checking. In the Doug Thomspon case the "unnamed source" turned out to be someone using a name that nobody has ever heard of and the source was NOT present at any conversation, was most likely some Dem operative planting stories.

Here is the link to the story, where Doug Thompson admits his huge mistakes. I doubt the Washington Post will print any admission and retraction.

===

Conned big time "CIA Witness" to White House Lying about Intel story found to be FRAUD
by Doug Thompson

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

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.

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."


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.

[FairOpinion]

I am no fan of Powell.

But the story here is not Powell, the story is that the liberal main press reports total fabrications, as actual events. Powell never announced that he will resign after the 2004 elections, Armitage never told any such thing to Condi Rice, yet the media didn't report it as speculation, but as factual report that it happened.

[TheCookMan]

Anonymous sources = B S

[lainde]

BTTT

[Miss Marple]

Let me make this plain:

I do not support Hamas, nor any terrorist organization. Not do I think Powell does either. Nor the President. I am referring to ONE statement by Powell which sounds to me like a neogtiation tool, similar to how Arafat was treated.

Arafat was told he needed to do more to stop terrorism. It was held out as a carrot to him. He did nothing. He never got to meet with the President and was marginalized.

This is my opinion on the statement. I could, of course, be wrong. Time will tell.

And I do NOT have people "banned." That is a rumour put up by those who dislike my opinions, and it is absolutely not true.

[an amused spectator]

It just doesn't make sense to have the FALSE story under Breaking news, and the correction down someher, where not everyone may see it.

Maybe we should have a section where we can move false stories and pieces from propaganda campaigns that the Left is ginning up. ;-)

[NYC GOP Chick]

Yes, I often disagree with people who willfully refuse to accept facts that fly in the face of their preconceived notions.

Regardless of what Powell *really* meant with that statement about hamas, it's a dangerous one -- as dangerous as any conciliatory statement toward al qaeda would be.

Why can't you answer the questions I've repeatedly asked here about treating al qaeda the same as their fellow terrorists? Shouldn't we give al qaeda another chance -- if the promise to reopen under new management and say that they'll renounce the reason for their founding and continued existence, terrorism?

You can think whatever you wish to convince yourself about civil service employees (who can't be canned) vs. political appointees (who most certainly can be), but that doesn't make your wishes true. Yes, there are plenty of Statist Dept. employees who are pro-arab, virulently anti-Bush mischief-makers -- but more are political appointees from the Clinton era than civil service hires.

[Miss Marple]

I will defer to your opinion on Hamas. I have been thinking about this this morning and I think you have made a good point about Hamas. If they want a social agency, disband Hamas, can everyone in it, and form a new social agency with people untied to terrorism.

As far as the State employees, many of whom are career but pro-Arab, I do support cleaning house, but the mechanism is going to have to be found to bypass the civil service laws.

If I have time today, I am going to see if I can find the article that you read in 2001. I am trying to understand what formed your opinion about Powell.

[NYC GOP Chick]

I have no problem with those statements -- but his gushing praise of hamas as a social service agency came *after* those more appropriate statements.

And as I've already said in this thread (and I'm rapidly growing sick and tired of repeating myself for stubborn people who can't read the rest of a thread, let alone reputable sources that contradict their wishes and opinions), the State Department has an established history of freelancing. Or are you going to deny the FACT that in the days after the 9/11 attacks, they took it upon themselves to inform the taliban that we weren't going to even try to overthrow them?

And if you don't believe me, go to National Review Online and look up Joel Mowbray's articles. Too bad Mowbray's book about the Statist Dept. isn't coming out until later this year. His articles on the Statist Dept. and their stubborn refusal to stop the "Visa Express" program in muslim countries after 9/11 is nauseating beyond words. I'd love to see some of you defend *that*!

[NYC GOP Chick]

Well, you have an unrealistic and uninformed opinion about the media.

[NYC GOP Chick]

Thank you. :)

I *do* support President Bush and want him to succeed wildly -- both politically and, more importantly, for this great nation to be safe and prosperous. But I've long ago come to the conclusion that Powell isn't the man to help accomplish that.

I really wish I could find one of the articles I read about Powell refusing to get rid of the Clintonian political hires, because I remember how disappointed I felt when I first read that. I had been *so* happy when Bush held that press conference to announce that Powell and Rice were heading up his foreign policy team -- I was so happy that I cried. But when I read that he wasn't going to put in appropriate (conservative) appointees to replace the tainted Clintonistas, my heart just sank.

[upchuck]

If President Bush would get rid of all the leftover Klintonistas in the State Dept., I bet a lot of this kind of crap would stop. Nothing wrong with being "nice," until being "nice" starts biting you in the butt.