Kay on Today: "It Was Absolutely Prudent to Go to War Against Saddam" (Remarkable New Info)

The Today Show

[governsleastgovernsbest]

If one reasonably fair-and-balanced Today Show interview is a fluke, could two be a trend?

Back on January 15th, I reported on Katie Couric's interview with Ted Kennedy in which she had been remarkably tough on the senior splasher from Massachusetts regarding his speech on Iraq.

This morning, it was Matt Lauer's turn to offer, dare I say it, a thoroughly fair performance in his interview of former chief US weapons inspector in Iraq David Kay.

From a national security and political perspective, what was much more important than the tone of Lauer's questions was the substance of Kay's remarks. Democrats looking to exploit Kay's earlier remarks to accuse the Bush administration of misleading the American people will come away from this interview bitterly disappointed, their arguments in tatters.

For on every issue down the line, Kay forcefully made the case that the Bush administration acted in good faith, that Saddam was indeed a threat, and that war against him was absolutely justified.

Began Lauer: "Some people have relied on your earlier statement to say that the US misled the American people into war on the basis of a claim that Saddam had WMDs. Do you think the US misled the American people?"

Kay: "It wasn't only the US who came to that conclusion. The French, Germans, and UN all thought Saddam had WMDs."

Lauer: "If you didn't find WMDs, does that mean they never existed, or could they have been moved prior to war?"

Kay: "We looked at that possiblity but we didn't find evidence that there were large stockpiles prior to the war."

Lauer than ran a clip from Pres. Bush's State of the Union Address from one year ago, in which he stated that Saddam had been employing huge resources to develop WMDs and had built up a large stockpile.

Lauer: "Was that inaccurate?"

Kay: "It was inaccurate in terms of the reality we found on the ground now, but it was accurate in terms of the intelligence at the time.

"It was also accurate in the sense that Saddam did spend large sums of money trying to get WMDs but he simply didn't get what he paid for.

"There was lots of corruption in the Iraq WMD development program."

Lauer: "So scientists lied to Saddam, they told him they could develop WMDs, took huge sums of money and didn't deliver?"

Kay: "Right. There was widespread corruption, lots of money wasted. People were concerned about the money, not about working."

Lauer: "But the intent to develop WMDs was there?"

Kay: "Absolutely, Saddam surely wanted to get WMDs and spent a lot of money trying to do so."

Lauer then showed a clip from Colin Powell at the UN saying Saddam had at least 500 tons of WMDs. Again, Kay explained that Powell was not being intentionally misleading and that his statement was based on the best intelligence available at the time.

Added Kay, responding to what some of the Dems are alleging: "To say there must have been pressure from the White House on the intelligence community is wrong. We've also been wrong about Iran and Libya. We clearly need better intelligence."

Lauer then quoted from Kay's earlier interview with Tom Brokaw in which Kay had said that "if anyone was abused (by faulty intelligence) it was the President of the US rather than the other way around."

Kay confirmed the accuracy of that remark.

Lauer: "Is it true that in 2000 and 2001 Saddam was pushing his nuclear progarm?"

Kay: "Yes, he was pushing hard for nuclear and long range missiles. Look, it's clear the man had the intent. He simply wasn't successful."

"He clearly lied to UN and was in material brach."

In a key moment in the interview, Lauer asked: "Based on everything you now know, was it prudent to go to war against Saddam?"

Kay: "It was absolutely prudent to go to war. The system was collapsing, Iraq was a country with desire to develop WMDs, and it was attracting terrorists like flies to honey."

Lauer: "Are your earlier comments being exploited for political reasons?"

"Inevitably yes, but what we have is a national security issue that shouldn't be exploited as a political issue."

Lauer: "Should we continue to search for WMDs as VP Cheney has suggested?

Kay: "Absolutely."

[governsleastgovernsbest]

This is, no pun intended, a bombshell interview. Kay absolutely absolves the Bush administration of any intent to mislead the American people into war, paints Saddam as a highly dangerous man who was ardently seeking WMDs, and strongly backs the President's decision to go to war.

While only a relatively minor footnote, Lauer's supportive tone was almost as equally surprising. The rough transcript above doesn't do it complete justice. By his tone, and the way he set up the questions, it was clear that Lauer was helping position Kay to make his statements in support of the Bush administration.

If Katie and Matt keep this up, I could be out of my "job" at FR, reporting on blatant liberal bias at The Today Show!

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Today Show ping.

[4CJ]

Only one explanation, Lauer has been cloned by aliens.

[Peach]

Hmm. Remarkable.

I've thought for some time now that the Rats would prefer we went to war against a nuclear and chemically armed country. Perhaps I was wrong and there is some sanity on the left after all.

[sauropod]

Don't throw in the towel just yet.

[Always Right]

If Katie and Matt keep this up, I could be out of my "job" at FR, reporting on blatant liberal bias at The Today Show!

I wouldn't hold my breath. I think Katie and Matt were just having an off day.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Well, if Lauer is showing signs of sanity, the trend hasn't reached the Dem presidential candidates yet. Dean, Kerry and the others are still claiming that the Bush administration misled the American people into war.

[jla]

^

[Puppage]

"If you didn't find WMDs, does that mean they never existed, or could they have been moved prior to war?"

Come on....Iraq is the size of Californina. IMHO, it's still too soon to make a conclusive decision. With that said, I would not be surprised if the were indeed moved to Syria before we had a chance to close the border.

[MEG33]

I have heard Kay speak.He said Bush just told him to search for the truth.Bush was misled as were the Brits,the French,the Germans,etc.Bad intel.

Good Morning.Thanks!

[Peach]

You are right of course. It's a bit of hopefulness on my part regarding the left. If the media can be made to understand the issues, it is my hope the electorate will also understand, which will drive the left to a more balanced position.

[Wait4Truth]

Bump! I don't suppose we will be hearing any of this on the cable networks. That's what the media does. They distort the original remarks of the person and then never correct it - even when the full transcript comes out. They do their initial damage and then they go silent. Happens every day. They know the public only hears the first headlines. It's dispicable.

[Arrowhead1952]

If Katie and Matt keep this up, I could be out of my "job" at FR, reporting on blatant liberal bias at The Today Show!

I just happened to turn on the Today show yesterday, and almost lost my breakfast when I sat the perky one.... She looks like she is always PO'ed about something

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Thanks for giving me hope! But seriously, once we get into the heart of the election campaign, I am confident that Matt and Katie will ride to the support of the Dem candidate and engage in the kind of Bush bashing that will give me plenty to report on!

[MEG33]

FYI

[Behind Liberal Lines]

I have to wonder if this wasn't a case of Lauer not doing his homework.

The liberal media is so liberal they've been ignoring reports out of England and elsewhere in which Kay made similar comments. Maybe Lauer was simply setting Kay up with softballs because he didn't realize that Kay was going to use them to defend the President and the war.

[Toespi]

if anyone was abused (by faulty intelligence) it was the President of the US rather than the other way around."

Given the atmosphere of the Intelligience community, one wonders if this was intentional.

[Quilla]

Thank you for the positively shocking report.

[McGruff]

Lauer: "If you didn't find WMDs, does that mean they never existed, or could they have been moved prior to war?"

Kay: "We looked at that possibility but we didn't find evidence that there were large stockpiles prior to the war."

Why not ask the direct question? Is there any evidence of Saddam shipping his WMDs to Syria?

[governsleastgovernsbest]

That's why I mentioned that, more than normally, it would have been useful to actually see the interview rather than rely on my report. It seemed clear to me that Lauer was not mindlessly lobbing open-ended questions, but that he was generally sympathetic to Kay's views and was asking questions designed to let him offer pro-Bush administration answers. Remarkable.