Posted on 07/09/2003 4:04:00 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.
© Copyright 2003 by Capitol Hill Blue
Doug has always claimed to be a " Conservative ". Well, he believes it; just as he believes that he's a " good " journalist. DT has hated, with a white hot HATE, the Bushes. He's made a fool of himself before, he's sorta, kinda, well not really apologised before on FR. No one should believe a thing he writes; not ever !
As to the malignant Clintons & their horde AND the Dems of the past ... you are correct.
It wouldn't be a matter of Bush the first doing it because it was "difficult" to appoint his own man. Bush senior was a very courteous individual, and he was, unfortunately, too moderate. That is why I wondered if the ambassador was appointed late in the year (the only date given was the year) , he went ahead and consulted with the next admin. He did it on other things as there was a normal and well planned transition when he handed over the reigns to the next administration. The transition process does begin - or should- before a president leaves office.
But as someone discovered just before your post, the Ambassador was appointed in May of 92, not late in the year, so no, I now doubt it was a matter of courtesy since this would be well before the election and it wouldn't make sense. Looks more like he's just a career State Dept. employee (been in there since 76) who was just moved on up to an ambassador's position. I don't think Bush Sr. was the type to clean house as the Clintons did with state's attorneys and the travel office. If someone was due an advancement they probably got it.
With Rockefellers , isn't that a family tradition?
Now, do me the favor of looking into the history of all of this.
For the REST of this marvelous parody, see post #72 on the new "Games People Play" thread.Source With No Name
On the first part of the story
I was looking at all the lies
There were slants and slurs and knocks and zings
There were plants and shills and stings
The first thing I met was a fly with a buzz
And this guy in cheap shades
The heat was hot and the ground was dry
But the air was full of soundI've been through the newsroom on a source with no name
It felt good to handed my fame
In the newsroom you can remember your name
'Cause ol' C-N-N won't give you no pain..." - PhilDragoo
Hmmmm... intersting point...
Terrance Joseph Wilkinson
Very interesting, given the various spellings of Wilkenson, Wilkinson, Wilkinsson, Wilkerson's last name posted by Doug Thompson in his various mea culpae. This might be a handy psuedonym coined by Thompson to keep his "source" identified in his own mind...
Not only COULD they, they HAVE!
The Democrats would never let a little fact like that get in the way of one of their spin cycles.
Here's one I liked from the linked article:
www.bushcoup.com
Registered to: David Lytel, Democrats.com, P.O. Box 20594 (New York, N.Y.)
Domain record created on: 11-01-2000 (six days BEFORE the election)
Phone contact: 123-456-7890
Purpose: Web site claiming Bush stole the election (formatted in an extremely similar manner to several other sites owned by Democrats.com).
Notes: obviously fraudulent phone contact info given with registration. Notice that Lytel registered the domain name on Nov. 1, six days before the election and long before anybody knew who was going to win. This suggests the Web site was created to as a preparation tool to attack Bush's legitimacy if and when he won the presidency a week later. Recall that Gore campaign strategists were prepared for the event that there would be a contested election before Election Day, and quickly mobilized
That Lytel guy was, I believe, involved in Clinton's White House web site. If you will remember, the Bush White House web site was created by a different person, and they removed all the old software and even moved it to a new server. I have often thought that there were ways for different offices and internal mails to be accessed from the old WH site, and that the Clintons thought they might have a back door into what was going on in the Bush administration. Since President Bush is no fool, they were foiled in that plan as well.
But back to the subject at hand. Lytel shows up in a lot of these things. I would not be surprised. Who bought Capitol Blue when it was sold last year?
2) Like ABC, CNN's NewsNight with Aaron Brown led with attacks on the administration's credibility, but Brown stretched his own credibility by picking up on a rumor, "a story that's been circulating on the Web today 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." Brown's raising of such an uncorroborated story befuddled CNN reporter David Ensor, who speaking slowly as he fumbled for words, told Brown: "I have no way to confirm that story and it is somewhat suspect, I would say..."
In a cursory check of a bunch of Web sites and news sources online, I could not find a reference to any such allegation. But then I'm not on the left-wing mailing lists which CNN must peruse.
Brown launched his July 9 program: "We begin with the question of credibility now dogging the White House even half a world away on President Bush's trip to Africa. Today, a State Department intelligence official who retired during the run-up to the war accused the Bush administration of practicing 'faith-based intelligence when it comes to Iraq.'"
a Following the lead story from David Ensor about the day's developments on the Niger story front and questions about how President Bush could have conveyed such a bogus claim, Brown confronted Ensor with an unsubstantiated rumor of his own:
"A couple things, David. There is, as you know, a story that's been circulating on the Web today 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. Do you have any reporting that supports the idea that the President was directly told it was fake before he included it in the State of the Union speech?"
A clearly flummoxed Ensor, speaking slowly as he fumbled for words, struggled for a reply now that he was on the spot and probably afraid of upsetting Brown if he condemned such rumor- mongering: "I have no way to confirm that story and it is somewhat suspect I would say but we'll have to check it."
Brown pressed again: "Alright, and any other information that would suggest the President knew in advance this was bogus?"
Ensor: "None at this point, no."
Brown: "Thank you, David, David Ensor in Washington."
Brown stayed on point: "David Sanger has been reporting on the case against Iraq and the political tussle over it for the New York Times. Mr. Sanger joins us from Washington, good to see you David, thank you. Same question, do you have any -- have you in your reporting seen anything that suggests that at any point the President before the speech was told this information was phony?"
Sanger: "No, we've not found anything along those lines. If one read into the footnotes of some of the earlier intelligence reports, which there's no reason to expect the President or even many of his top aides do, there were just hints that there were doubts about it."
There goes a great conspiracy theory.
This stuff is vile.
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.