BREAKING: Conned big time "CIA Witness" to White House Lying about Intel story found to be FRAUD

Capitol Hill Blue ^ | July 9, 2003 | Doug Thompson

[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

[Peach]

Having started this story from the beginning, I'm more confused than ever. What's your take on it?

[piasa]

I too have noticed that after the dust clears in the latest Powell controversy, that it usually emerges that Powell did not say what was attributed to him.

If the DNC wants to spread a lie, one of the more efficient ways to do it which will damage their opponent where he needs his support, is to feed the right information crafted to look like something they want to hear. Since many rightwingers dislike Powell, it is easy to attribute these kinds of quotes to Powell since the rightwing's anti-Powell side wants so desperately to believe he's a bad guy that they will believe anything they are told, however improbable, which makes Powell look bad- even if it also makes Bush look bad. Thus the right is used to spread the information to other people on the right side of the aisles who wouldn't accept the information if it came directly from the lib source.

[Mo1]

The sad part of all of this is that these low-life anti-american liberals are hurting this country with these blatent lies.

One of the reasons I am REALLY ticked off about it all

if they don't the liberal echo chamber (ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, C_Span and others) will be pushing these lies as far as they can

You bet they will push it .. this is all about the 2004 Elections

[Mo1]

Now Dean has thrown in on this?

I get the feeling there is a connection between Clinton and Dean

question is .. how to prove it and fine the truth

[piasa]

Retractions don't mean anything- the damage done with misinformation always exceeds the ability to do repairs, because the majority of the population does not keep up with the news and will never hear the retraction or connect it with the original rumors. First impressions are everything, even if they are lies. The DNC knows that very well.

[cyncooper]

I am interested in how Aaron Brown mentioned that the story was circulating Washington during the day yesterday. Who was circulating it? Who was peddling it?

Why did Brown mention it on the air? Is Brown going to mention today that it was all a lie?

What did Brown say?

[Pan_Yans Wife]

I find it frustrating when trying to tell people to wait and see about Powell, do not rush to judgement, give it time. All they hear is the left's rhetoric, and they don't listen to reason. If Powell was as bad as the media wants us to believe, then how is it he hasn't been shown the door, already?

[piasa]

Dean and Pitt ; I believe Dean has op ed pieces on Truthout.org.

[piasa]

The press has of late been hitting Rice quite hard for a NSA advisor. Usually NSA advisors are obscure, but for some reason there have been a lot of unnamed sources quoted who have dissed her. I reckon Hillary considers her a potential threat if Cheney for whatever reason, doesn't run.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

truthout.org seems evil. I know that makes me sound like a fundamentalist or at the very least simplistic, but it truly is. Pitt really concerns me. It never ceases to amaze me that people like Pitt, the Clintons, Begala, Carville, etc. can be so anti-American and the country does not see it!

[Pan_Yans Wife]

There are rumors that someone has dug up a great deal of nasty material on Rice. I have no idea what it could be.

[lepton]

No, that would be April Glaspie (Gillespie?).

Thanks. I do now recall seeing a woman giving interviews on that.

[piasa]

It doesn't help that one of Clinton's more corrupt officials was also named Rice.

[FairOpinion]

"Why not use your brainpower to find out just who this turd was and who he worked for all these years."
--

That's an excellent idea. It would turn into a really great story if you found some connection to say James Carvelle, for instance.

Makes you wonder how many moles are out there, who get into Journalists good graces, just so at some opportune times they can plant some politically motivated lies.

Nobody checked the Baghdad Museum story, which the media ran for weeks, then it turned out to be bogus.

I hope this will be a lesson not just for Doug, but for all honest journalists, who have gotten sloppy: better check and double check your facts, especially those that can have major consequences, like this one smearing President Bush.

I think, Doug, you owe President Bush an apology and I hope you will send him one.

It is the kind of thing that if someone walks up to you and tells you "inside information" that your best friend just defrauded the bank, your first reaction shouldn't be: it's a great story and print it, but "I know my friend better than that, this couldn't be true, so I do some real investigation to find out whether or not it IS true, and get the whole picture, to see whether it's a mistake, a politically motivated smear, or it's possibly true after all", THEN I write a story, if there is one.

I think that is the right attitude, and it can avoid the kind of problems you gotten yourself into and the problems you CAUSED.

I applaud that you admitted your grave error and serious negligence for not checking this guy out much better than you did, maybe as an atonement, as habs4eer suggest you should unmask this guy, and start going on a tour, giving lectures to other journalists and journalism students, warning them to avoid such serious breeches of trust.

You found out and you admitted that your source was a fraud, but I bet there are MANY other such fradulent sources and journalists who write articles based on such sources, which create major political problems.

Just think if you were on the receiving end of fraudulent things being said about you.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Nobody checked the Baghdad Museum story, which the media ran for weeks, then it turned out to be bogus.

With the press, it doesn't matter that Rumsfeld debunked this the very first time it was brought up. It took the press weeks of looking for what they WANTED to be the truth, and endless pressure, before they had to admit their duplicity. It was often bogus, but that is never the point with the press, is it?

[Imal]

A bold and fascinating story, Mr. Thompson, but in need of some serious follow-through.

1) Using unnamed sources to discredit another previously unnamed source does nothing to establish your credibility. The way to redemption in a case like this is to lay out all the facts and figures. If you are withholding facts pending a criminal investigation, you should say so, and later disclose those details when such investigations are complete, and in a timely manner.

2) Many of the details you omit would not be prejudicial to a criminal investigation and should be disclosed publicly without delay. Particularly many more of the details regarding this "Mr. Wilkinson", whom you freely name, and specifically how you came to verify and trust him as a source. The key word to your story, in more ways than one, is corroboration, and that requires details that we and your colleagues can check for accuracy. Withholding such details would be suspicious to the point of self-condemnation.

3) Deleting those stories of yours that you claim are tainted, rather than revealing what elements they contained that you are now disavowing, is not a retraction. Having made the admission you have made, it is incumbent upon you to publicly address the validity of each and every story you have written that may have been compromised by this corrupt source. That is by means a simple or painless task, but attempting to hide these stories instead is tantamount to an ersatz coverup, and is questionable in motive.

4) In brief, if you are choosing to come clean, then there is no benefit to only coming half-clean, anymmore than there is benefit to washing only one half of a dinner plate. The veil must be lifted entirely for the truth to be revealed. You have talked the talk, now it is time to walk the walk.

An apology made in earnest is a brave and commendable act. But an apology made in dishonesty or deceit is beneath contempt.

It is now up to you to establish for your readers which type of apology this is.

We'll be watching.

Imal

[Sabertooth]

I was told by someone that if you see the word "socialist" is used to describe President Bush by someone that he (someone) is working for Clintons, Dean, or Buchanan.

I think the person who told you that was being silly. Certainly any of the above would like to see or exploit GOP schisms for various reasons, but that doesn't mean that the schisms are necessarily artificial.

Not everyone disappointed by President Bush on a given matter are in the tentacles of some dark cabal. To think so is to misunderstand reality.

Frankly, I hope the person who told you that was just having a bad day, and isn't reflecting the collective wisdom of any Republican brain trust. It's on such tenuous thoughts that bad governance and electoral strategery might be based.

[Lauratealeaf]

I really think he wants to hide all information about Wilkinson, completely, and he is probably doing a good job. However, he has damaged his credibility greatly, and I would ignore him.

Doug Thompson is not believable to me. His name should be mud on Free Republic.

[windchime]

"So this guy Thielmann was an intelligence officer and he is claiming that Iraq had no missiles that could strike Iran........ Huh?"


Thielmann is quoted in the article as saying,"Its missiles could not reach Israel, Saudi Arabia or Iran, said Greg Thielmann, who held a high post in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research."

Not only COULD they, they HAVE!

From what I saw on Google, he could be on the payroll of any leftist group. He also has an international flavor because some of the articles are in German.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

I suspect Doug Thompson will maintain a Freeper following.