Is Capitol Hill Blue a reliable source?

[bluestateguy]

They are running a story saying that the grad jury investigating the Valerie Plame leak is hearing testimony from people who are claiming that George W. Bush knew of and made no effort to stop the leak. Is this a reliable outlet or just another crank website?

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4629.shtml

[David Dunham]

1. It is at times but not always. I hope so this time.

[jfxgillis]

5. Er ... "Not always" rather ...

.... contradicts the notion of "reliable," doesn't it?

"Almost a virgin?"

"Very unique?"

"Just a little bit pregnant?"

[Democat]

2. There is a thread with 100+ replies on that article

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=599147

[Must_B_Free]

3. Just ask Joe Wilson, or was the Wilkerson?

[jfxgillis]

4. No.

Go back and read his Clinton/Lewinsky ga-BAHGE.

Basically, his gig is to add one extra but barely believable layer of the fantastic to whatever is in the public record.

Granted, that's an interesting method because lots of the time real life actually is a step more fantastic than is currently confirmed, so he can sometimes claim in retrospect to have been "first," but it's fundamentally an educated guess.

[UTUSN]

6. Hope So. There's Another Article/Thread on Shrub Wigging Out n/t

[Ripley]

8. I really want to believe, but...

quoting unnamed sources saying Smirky walks around the halls of the White House calling people fucking assholes in front of others and then quoting scripture in the next breath...while almost believable...does not exactly sound like real journalism to me.

[CWebster]

10. George W. Bush recently told Jordan’s King Abdullah,

"You can piss on Chalabi."

[Ripley]

11. Really?

Well, I know the little fake cowboy cusses up a storm in private, but in the public halls where all kinds of people are witnesses and then quote scripture immediately after? Nah. He only quotes scripture when someone has written the lines for him to say. Never off the cuff.

I'm really not denying these things happened but I have to question the sources when they are unnamed and so extremely damaging. It reminds me too much of the really extreme "witness stories" from Clinton's time. Clinton can't keep his dick in his pants, but do I believe he purposely sold secrets to China or ran coke for the CIA through Arkansas?

No.

[WilliamPitt]

7. NO

Remember this:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=19&num=2529

Conned big time

By DOUG THOMPSON
Jul 9, 2003, 18:05

(snip)

On Tuesday, we ran a story headlined "White House admits Bush wrong about Iraqi nukes." For the first time, Wilkinson 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.

...more...

Caution, folks.

[ramblin_dave]

12. But isn't admitting he was conned a good thing?

It's not like he dug in and refused to fess up. The NY Times was conned by Chalabi and their recent "apology" was less forthcoming than what CHB posted.

[WilliamPitt]

15. This + endless Lewinski mongering + their general outlook

makes me question them.

Remember, the reason the story they had to retract made such an impact is because so many of us WANTED IT TO BE TRUE. I see that happening here again, and it concerns me.

If the story shows up on the AP wire, I'll dutifully apologize.

[CWebster]

9. Couldn't be any worse than CNN or

the NYTimes when it comes to promoting less than the truth.

[JI7]

13. i don't want us to follow newsmax type things

while i'm sure much of what they say might be true, it's hard to believe every detail they give. such as those quotes concerning bush firing george tenet. bush is a mess as he is. we don't need to exaggerate or anything.

[gratuitous]

14. Atrios doesn't put much stock in them

But today's article about Bush's meltdown is kind of fun. Plays into all our prejudices while relying exclusively on unnamed sources. Porn for progressives. It's a nice diversion, but don't let it take the place of real news and real work. We've still got to roll up our sleeves and work our collective butts off to make sure that the White House isn't close enough for these crooks to steal again.

[11cents]

16. Ask yourself this question ....

The latest Capitol Hill Blue story is full of quotes from "White House sources" sharing lurid tales of what's going on in the WH. Now, how likely is it that real White House sources are going to blab to Capitol Hill Blue -- to CAPITOL HILL BLUE -- if they're going to blab to anyone at all? How likely is it that Capitol Hill Blue has knowledgeable sources of any kind? Answer: it is very very very unlikely. Conclusion: the shit is made up.

And as with Drudge's stuff, a sensitive reader can recognize made-up quotes and claims. They're the ones that sound like they came straight out of a badly written pulp novel.

[ibegurpard]

17. Please remember

that when stories like this make the rounds and are then discredited, that it casts a dubious light on ALL such stories. Another propaganda tool: throw enough shit out there to drown out the truth, hence the Republican "noise machine."

On edit: that's not to say that it shouldn't be considered (nothing irks me more than dismissing everything as "conspiracy theory) but it should be approached with extreme caution.