It's time to re-visit that Capitol Hill Blue faux Wilkinson story

[grasswire]

Remember? Just about the time Joe Wilson's NYT editorial was printed, Capitol Hill Blue ran an exclusive story about a "CIA advisor" named Terrence J. Wilkinson who reported that Bush became angered over the negative report on yellowcake? And then CHB was forced to retract that story? The CHB editor was dragged over the coals?

Here's a cached synopsis from a dead link, to refresh memories.

"The Capitol Hill Blue is reporting that George W. Bush was told before the State of the Union speech that the Niger uranium link was questionable intelligence at best. The CHB is quoting Terrance J. Wilkinson, a CIA advisor who was present when the President was informed of the uranium report, indicating that the President reacted with anger over the doubts. According to this source, Bush's national security advisors were urging him not to include the claim in the SOTU speech, but the President insisted on the claim:"

After web sites and bloggers went wild with this story, Capitol Hill Blue was assaulted with the info that it was disinformation. The editor's wrenching admission is here:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_2529.shtml

So what the hell was going on here?? Who was Terrence J. Wilkinson? Was he working for Rove?

It's time to reexamine this whole episode.

[grasswire]

1. the freepers did some digging on Wilkinson

This thread has links to their other threads on him.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/945007/posts

[grasswire]

2. please keep this kicked all night...

....we might be able to ferret out some news to tie this to Rove's dirty tricks.

[Must_B_Free]

6. This is beautiful...

DU and the Freepers working together to save America from tyranny?

[havocmom]

3. yeah, bells went off in my intutive lobe when the story appeared in CHB

and I am muy curious about this report. Observing Bush's behavior when the world does not dance to his tune, the image of him getting really PO about being told not to mention the yellow cake seems in character, no?

Hey, grasswire, this whole thing, coupled with the 5 minutes of the CIA on Nightline I managed to see has my heebie-jeebie nerve working overtime and am unable to sleep.

Did you see Starpass' thread about the stink of the Rush thing? There were a couple posts on it musing about possibility that Rush's large quanties of pills might be to supply someone high up (one should pardon the pun). I read those and falshed back to the CIA group on Nightline, particularly Johnson telling Bush to call off the dogs. Man, the heebie-jeebie nerve started buzzing on that one too... Spooks declared war? Lots of excrement hitting ventilation devices.

Then I flash to newsguyatl's post about a big secret he found out about that would break in Oct.

Not normally a tinfoil bonnet sort of person, but reality has been wierder than my worst dreams the past 3 years.

[grasswire]

4. one explanation...

...might be that the story is true, but that Rove ordered CHB to retract it in the interest of "national security."

Seriously, Doug Thompson of CHB was very frightened then. He removed a lot of stuff from his web site.

It was the dirty tricks week. Who knows what heads they were knocking.

[havocmom]

5. Agree, the thugs have been busy playing at intimidation

but they overplayed their hand with the outing of Plame. Their big problem is the same one bullies in the schoolyards everwhere have; they are really cowards at heart. Maybe the spooks issuing their advice about calling off the dogs will make others a bit bolder about standing their ground? One would hope.

Was amused this AM with the story about the use of mice to taste the chimp's chow. They have been shaken, not stirred.

hey, I cannot stomach the trek to freeperville, really, am very ill tonight. Can you give me the short version of what they are saying in regards to Wilkenson? The name just doesn't chime for me, but then I am old and getting feeble :evilgrin:

[dmr]

7. I was getting the heebie-jeebies as I was writing my post

over there. I was just speculating about Rush, but the I got a chill thinking about, but wouldn't type it then, how someone(s) setting Rush up to suicide himself - being distraught, depressed and all, and that would take care of that mess (the mess being, Rush would sqeal like a pig if his buddies he helped elect didn't support him 100% now that he's in trouble) - and that would answer Starpass's question to why the Enquirer (who is favoring the right wing) is after Rush, but not Arnold who is full of interesting rumors.

I remember reading the CHB article and thinking back then that somebody(s) made Wilkensen 'disappear' for the convienence of the cabal. Someone isn't here (for 20+ years), and then all of a sudden not be here unless he is made to not exist - if that makes any sense.

[DrBB]

8. Yes, that's a very interesting data point

I'd forgotten about the "Wilkinson" business--thanks for the reminder. It was quite a splash in freeper-ville, and there seemed to be a deliberate and highly typical attempt to smear by confusion--the fact that the names were similar. It certainly added noise to the mix, making it harder to keep Wilson's charges in focus. Wilkinson turned out to be some kind of known fabulist. I don't see any way to walk this cat back to Cheney off hand, but this topic is worth a kick. Thanks for the reminder, and for posting the link over in the Nightline thread, without which I would have missed this.

[eek]

9. Could Wilkinson = Wilson?

Just a thought.

[grasswire]

10. kick for the smart weekend crowd

[HFishbine]

11. Great Catch

Yes, now that you remind us, I do remember the original story and its eventual retraction.

This in particular:

"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."

This paragraph from the retraction raises questions:

"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..."

1) Who called to claim Wilkinson was lying?
2) Who doubted Wilkinson's existence?
3) Who wanted to talk to him?
4) Have any subsequent attempts been made to contact Wilkinson?
5) Could "Wilkinson" have been a fake name? Is there any way of finding out who he really was?

Capitol Hill Blue should be looking into this anew -- especailly since recent developments suggest that Wilkinson's story may have indeed been credible.

[grasswire]

12. somebody else....

...rather than CHB should be looking into it, because CHB was obviously scared off and silenced.

I sent the heads up a couple of places last night, but I'd sure like to see a big push to revisit this by someone with some resources and clout.

[LittleApple81]

13. kick n/t

[grasswire]

14. kick

[grasswire]

15. maybe I need to re-name this thread

I thought it would generate more interest, since there's something here in this puzzle that could be really damaging to the WH.

[ewagner]

16. Let me give it a kick, grasswire.

Therre seems to be some distraction because not many posts are appearing on anything.

:kick:

[scarletwoman]

17. Fascinating... and creepy as hell...

I remember that "Wilkinson" business also, but only because you've brought it up here. (CLEVER you!) It was one of those odd things that basically left me scratching my head at the time, and then I just let it go.

For me, the relentless barrage of indescribable outrage that we have been subjected to over the past 3 years makes it difficult to wrap one's mind around every single detail. Even now, trying to think about this particular peculiarity is making my brain hurt... (*sigh*)

But thanks for bringing it up. I really have nothing useful to add, other than giving your extremely intriguing post a kick...

sw