[Doug Thompson]

QUOTE:
_____________
I would have taken your article more seriously if you would not have said Bush lied when even your source didn't say that. All he said was that Bush believed that it would be proven true and therefore, he went ahead and went with it. Your source did not say Bush told him something along the lines of: "Well, you are right, but I am going to say it anyway." The latter case would constitute lying. Not the former, which was actually what happened according to your source.

You also should have tried to find a second person to confirm what Wilkinson said.
______________________________

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.

It has been interesting to watch how the various media have played the story today. Most have used words like "wrong" or "incorrect." The Washington Times said "White House concedes false Iraqi claim," almost as strong a headline as CNN's: "US knew uranium report was false."

So why such a strong headline from us? Because I'm mad. Bush didn't have to use a discredited claim to justify the war with Iraq. He had plenty of other justification, so why taint the issue with bad intel? As I said before, we don't pull in our punches for anyone. Not Bill Clinton, not George W. Bush. One week we're called leftist, the next we're a propaganda arm of the GOP. I once had a city editor who told me that "when you piss off both sides, you're doing your job." Based on our email, we must be doing our job.

Doug

[rwfromkansas]

Alright sir. I am more comfortable with your reporting here.

I have sent you a freepmail with some questions to send to Wilkinson if he chooses to respond. If I feel there is a big story here, I will run with it myself in my college paper.

[Republican Wildcat]

You stated in the article that the White House "admitted Bush lied." Nothing of the sort occurred. You weren't merely not holding back any punches. You were simply not telling the truth.

Your article is not truthful. Period.

[alnick]

The use of the word "lied" has also sparked some controversy on the Capitol Hill Blue forum as well.

Of course it did because it was a blatant lie by YOU. Sheesh.

[swheats]

So why such a strong headline from us? Because I'm mad.

I'm amazed the notoriety you receive after writing from anger about Bush. This article and the "Madman of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue" seems to have given you much press on FR.

Damages your credibility and your sources because you've thrown impartiality and unbiased opinion out the window.