Capital Hill Blue And The Inquirer At Bullshit Sources.

We should not be repeating their crap as the truth here.

That is all...

I've seen his outrageous work posted around here quite a bit. It's a hilarious read, but not a credible source.

I've seen the "Lizards from Hars" guy quoted around here as an "authority".....

that Capitol Hill Blue is.

I vote that DU adopt a rule banning such sources.

as unreliable... or shall we just let people make their own minds without nannys watchng over us?

We can make our own minds you know.

So he is not all bullshit.

Are you talking about the 'National Enquirer'?

I haven't looked at Capitol Hill Blue that much, I only recall a dust-up about some article from it a year or two ago, and that was that.

with ties to the neoConfederate movement...

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

CHB is often dissed on DU but I am still waiting for someone to give me a sold reason as to why?

Sure they never give their sources because they are INSIDE the Bush administration. I read all their articles and they are no less believable than most sites. Why is it so hard to believe Bush is losing his mind under the kind of stress he is in and who better to have access to his Administration than a former Reagan Administration official who turned against Bush?

and you blew them off.

"I read all their articles and they are no less believable than most sites."
Hey, to the gullible, everything has credibility.

I used to hang out on their bulletin board. A good mix of right and left and good debate.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Yeah, Doug Thompson got screwed by a phony source a year ago, and Capitol Hill Blue quickly 'fessed up to the screwing. If only the NYT would be so honest about how Chalabi has been conning them for a dozen years. (Imagine Judith Miller writing what Thompson wrote: "I was wrong. I'm sorry.")

The "conned big time" correction is pretty interesting reading. (Linked above in Phil's comment.) It's also tough to figure out what was really *wrong* about the phony source story:

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."


A reliable spook -- known to various GOP pols --feeds Thompson all sorts of solid leads over twenty years, and then vanishes after one is said to be false. And the "false" story then makes it to CNN and a zillion web pages. Sounds like somebody in intelligence was sick of the Chalabi version and wanted to make Bush suffer. Well, it worked!

Also on Capitol Hill Blue: This weirdly disturbing June 4 piece on "Bush's erratic behavior" since the war went sour. I wish Will Ferrell was still on SNL to act out this story.

(I've met Thompson, as has Reason's "boy intern" Matt Welch. Doug's a smart, nice guy & has been publishing Capitol Hill Blue for 10 years.)

Comment by: Ken Layne at June 8, 2004 05:14 AM

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2004/06/tracking_down_t.shtml

to vouch for Doug Thompson?

Hahahahahahahaha.......

Reason is a right wing puddle of pus. Anybody who believes that crap deserves nothing but ridicule.

Without a free press, EVERY source is valuable to me. I have to ability to discern what makes sense.

NYT, WaPo, CNN, FOX, that is all, anybody who beleives then implicitely because they are main stream needs to learn to question

We do not live in a free country and we do not have a free press, and some of these questionable sources, are your rumor mills of the ancien regime... look it up

You're making a mistake trying to tell 70k+ independent thinkers what to read or believe. That just doesn't fly around here.

If a story or scenario, such as Bush going bananas, comes from various sources in various ways, then usually there is some truth in it. If there is a planted story somewhere or an outright lie, it usually comes and goes as fast as you can say 'pickles'. When I see variations of a story from different people over a long period of time, I'm inclined to believe the truth lies somewhere between total lie and gospel truth. As IS my right.

And, THAT is all.

but, i would still not use them as a primary source unless I got backup.

the Cincinnati Inquirer? a bit of a rightist rag, but sheesh, not worth banning.

limbaugh is a druggie story, proving once again that even a broken clock is right twice a day

actually, while it's a vapid paper, a good chunk of it is perfectly reasonable, otherwise the libel suits would shut them down.

they fact checking department has gotten pretty good since then... to ahem avoid the lawsuits