Replies

I e-mailed this to the EP's (I think that is enough writing.....going to head to bed and do my calling tomorrow):

Dear Late Show executive producer:

I was watching the Late Show with David Letterman like
I usually do every evening after the news. It is an
enjoyable program...or at least it was until I had to
sit through Joe Wilson bash the President and state
allegations with no proof and nobody to present
another side to the story.

I am ony 21, but am solidly conservative. Joe Wilson
and the media have left out many important facts in
the Iraq debate. It is a well-known secret around
Washington that Wilson was not very protective of his
wife's CIA identity. He blabbed at parties and even
had an article printed about himself and her, with
pictures included.

Furthermore, Joe's mission to Niger only detailed one
allegation of Iraq's weapons programs. Even in the
Clinton administration, Democrats, Republicans...they
all were SURE Saddam had WMD's. I can cite quote
after quote after quote of CLEAR belief in
this.....not just normal veiled political speak. For
the sake of space, I will not in this e-mail, but if
you would like, I will e-mail them to you. They even
were sure of links between Iraq and Al Queda (read a
Justice Department indictment from the late 1990's,
which I can find for you if you would like). Hell,
even the 9/11 commissioners the other day said they
found links between the two and that the press twisted
their statement on Iraq having no link to 9/11 into
supposedly Iraq and Al Queda not being in league with
eachother at all. If there was no link at all, that
came to the surprise of the two chairs (a Dem and
Repub) who say there were. Reporter Jayna Davis of
Oklahoma City has boxes full of evidence linking an
Iraqi to the OKC bombing even (she has been
interviewed by several congressional leaders and her
evidence has been deemed credible). Why not have her
on your show for balance? www.jaynadavis.com

As for Joe Wilson's Niger claim, the British still
stand by the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium
from Niger. During the Wilson saga, they came out to
defend the President on the matter and said the US
only had part of the evidence....they had irrefutable
proof. EVEN IN THE STATE OF THE UNION QUOTE THAT
WILSON QUOTED FROM ON THE SHOW, Bush cites BRITISH,
not American intelligence. Therefore, Wilson's claim
to somehow "prove" Bush wrong based on what HE found
instead of what the Brits found is deceitful at best,
LYING at worst.

Note that Wilson ignores this. He ignores anything
that does not serve his purpose...just like he blames
the administration of doing.

Wilson is a member of one school of CIA operatives
that served under Clinton and believed one thing about
terrorism, that a law enforcement strategy could
contain it (FYI, Richard Clarke was another member of
this school of thought). Well, we saw the result of
that on 9/11. Just because a couple are criticizing
Bush does not make them right. They just have a
different viewpoint than the people running the show
in the CIA now who believe that to defeat terrorism, a
Middle East change in govt. will need to take place.
Just like governments had to change individually to
get rid of Communism mostly, so they believe the same
must be for terrorism.

I note that Joe Wilson tried to claim some
imperialistic goal of the Bush administration in the
Middle East on your program. It is no surprise that
he did not mention that the strong belief in a need
for democratic reform there is due to the issue of
terrorism. It is not surprising that he ignored this
because it would not be helpful to his agenda of
making the Bush administration look like it is trying
to take over the world (instead of save it, which I
believe they are trying to do).

Wilson was not right that going to Iraq led to the
"smallest reward," as he stated on your show. I would
say the liberation of a country is a pretty damn high
reward. It has come at great cost, but ultimately,
that is the only way the greatest reward can be
achieved.

I think it is disgusting that you have chosen to spit
on our troops by giving this man a spotlight on your
show instead of trying to boost the morale of the
troops we have over there doing some good in this
world.

Will you give an opposing viewpoint air on your show?

Perhaps author Sean Hannity, Colin Powell, Condi Rice
(she would be very effective), or GW Bush himself to
respond to these allegations and defend the war?

Will you let another voice be heard?

Or is the Late Show now a member of the John Kerry
campaign?

Unless you commit to getting another perspective to
balance your show's politics...and soon...I will be
writing an editorial in my college newspaper urgning
Letterman be boycotted.

The program isn't as good as it was in the late 90's
anyway (what happened to the gags where somebody went
out and shouted stuff at people whenever David talked
into his ear?) Perhaps I should just switch to Leno.
But, I will give you a chance to keep my viewership by
raising the bar in fairness.

Thanks for your time.

Sincerely,

Yo Mama (j/k)