Dear Alan Fryer

I sent an email to CTV news today. I asked them where their coverage is on Joe Wilson’s exposure as a liar and fraud. Considering the breathless reporting they gave to the infamous “16 words” in the State Of The Union address, and the “Iraq trying to buy uranium from Africa” contraversy, one would think they’d be over this complete vindication of the Bush administration like white on rice.
A search for the words “Joe Wilson” produced only this year old item on the initial contraversy.

The 16 words in the State of The Union Address last year in which Bush stated that British Intelligence had reported that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium in Africa have been upheld by the Senate Intelligence Report.
Did you know that?
The same report quite clearly exposes Joe Wilson, husband of the infamous “outed” cia agent Valerie Plame, as an out and out liar.
Now, Mr. Fryer et al – why have you not revisited this information to correct it for Canadian viewers? The SOTU address recieved tremendous coverage at the time.
Or, does anyone at CTV actually READ the reports you “report” on?

Over at Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds is gloating.

LIKE MILLI VANILLI’S GRAMMY AWARD, this “Restore Honesty” website by the now-discredited Joe Wilson is mostly of comedic value now. But wait, there’s more — scroll to the bottom and you’ll see that it’s “Paid for by John Kerry for President, Inc.” Quite an embarrassment.

Indeed.
Now, I think it’s time for an experment, fellow Canabloggers – Join me in emailing CTV. (I don’t watch CBC tv at all, so email them too if it’s appropriate). Ask them where the “Joe Wilson lied and Iraq did try to buy uranium from Niger” story is.
Let’s see if we can get a reply.

3 Replies to “Dear Alan Fryer”

  1. $200 for proof that Wilson lied
    See
    http://www.transcendentalbloviation.blogspot.com
    To avoid accusations of “moving the goal post”
    (already registered by some), I don’t require that
    you prove Wilson guilty of perjury – he’s not on
    trial, so how can you? Rather, the proof should
    be based on the standards for perjury, which I
    assume require establishing beyond a reasonable
    doubt that someone lied.
    Regards,
    Michael Turner
    leap@gol.com

Navigation