Replies

Does anyone have a link to the threads on which said digging was done?

FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"
[ Browse | Search | Topics | Post Article | My Comments ]

Click to scroll to commentary.
Did Capitol Hill Blue Post An Article With Fabrications?
Me ^

Posted on 07/08/2003 1:32 PM PDT by William McKinley

In this article on Capitol Hill Blue, there are the following lines:
"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."
Serious allegations. But I notice it is a single source. Being a conservative, I value the lessons of experience, and experience has told me that single sources are to be treated with skeptism. When I see one, I want to know more about the source quoted so as to establish if I should treat that source as credible.
So what about "Terrance J. Wilkinson"?
A Google search for "Terrance J. Wilkinson" found no results (which will change when Google picks up the Capitol Hill Blue article).
Google suggested that the name might be Terrence. But a Google search on "Terrence J. Wilkinson" also produced no hits.
Perhaps the middle initial is the problem. Alas, a Google search on "Terrence Wilkinson" CIA gave no hits, and a Google search on "Terrance Wilkinson" CIA also yielded no hits.
A Google news search on Terrence Wilkinson comes up with nothing relevant. So does a Google news search of Terrance Wilkinson.
A Google search on one of the phrases from one of the quotations comes up empty.
I would anticipate a 'CIA advisor' who attends the same briefings as the President to live somewhere near D.C. But there are no listings according to Anywho for a Terrance or Terrence Wilkinson in D.C., Maryland, or Virginia.
A Google search on "CIA Advisor" Wilkinson also comes up empty.
Perhaps Capitol Hill Blue would be better served by providing some more information about the person quoted so that others can judge his credibility. That is, if he exists.

LINK

I just posted this update to my blog:

Things are getting more interesting regarding the Terrance Wilkinson story.
Doug Thompson informs me that he did not sell that story to Japan Today. Japan Today got the story from Truthout.org. I had already exchanged emails with the editor of Japan Today, and was under the impression that the most they were going to do was print some denials by the White House, in tomorrow's edition.
I sent them the following email:
To: jteditor@japantoday.com
Subject: Re: "White House Admits Bush Lied"
I just had a bit of a dialog with Doug Thompson. I understand from him that you did not get the story from Capitol Hill Blue, but rather from "truthout.org".

That means 1) you printed a plaigerized story, and 2) it is a plaigerized story that is inaccurate in its headline and lead-in paragraph, and 3) it is a story containing quotations from a non-existant person.

How you handle this will speak to the integrity of your news organization.

Regards

So who is behind Truthout, and why are they plaigerizing false stories and pushing to get them peddled overseas? WHOIS information says the domain is registered to a Marc Ash of Los Angeles, California:
   Organization:
      Marc Ash
      Marc Ash
      767 S San Pedro St
      Los Angelos, CA 90014
      US
      Phone: 213-489-1971
      Email: admin@artfix.com
A brief Google search of Marc Ash suggests that he is not really interesting in getting the truth out as much as pushing leftist propaganda.
Which brings us back, again, to the story CHB broke before the Iraq war:
"Writers and broadcasters friendly to the Democratic cause have already been provided talking points... Capitol Hill Blue obtained a copy of the talking points... The talking points outline a strategy to raise public doubts of the President’s real intentions, including: ...--Claiming the Bush administration has “manufactured” evidence against Saddam Hussein and used that evidence to encourage Britain and other allies to join the American fight against Iraq;"

I see this in an article from the Washington Post today -

--. . . . similar to the argument made in the DNC e-mail [sent out to a million people Thursday - today] and the accompanying video that the Democrats hope to run as an ad.

"In his State of the Union address, George W. Bush told us of an imminent threat ... America took him at his word," the video says, showing Bush delivering the speech as it aired on Fox News. "But now we find out it wasn't true."
The ad continues, "a year earlier, that claim was proven false. The CIA knew it. The State Department knew it. The White House knew it."--

Was the DNC anticipating stories like the CHB story this week? Or are they just really fast when it comes to making ads? (I suppose this has been a topic for more than this week, but in light on today's developments, the whole thing smells a little fishy.)