Lauer Challenges Uncle's Call for $100 Million Ransom for Kidnapped Soldiers

Today Show/NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[governsleastgovernsbest]

by Mark Finkelstein

June 20, 2006

For a TV host, there's nothing much more difficult than interviewing a family member of someone who has been killed or seriously harmed. So when the uncle of one of the US soldiers kidnapped and possibly killed in Iraq called for the offering of a massive ransom and a prisoner exchange, give Matt Lauer credit for having had the courage to challenge him.

Here's how it went down.

Lauer: "A group linked to al-Qaeda on its website has claimed that they actually took Kristian and another soldier. What's your reaction to that?"

Replied Ken MacKenzie, a well-spoken, well-informed uncle to PFC Kristian Menchaca:

"My reaction is the United States government should have immediately notified . . . the mujahadeen that the United States government was offering a $100-million reward and offering to exchange the 2,500 mujahadeen detainees that Prime Minister al-Maliki of Iraq plans to release several weeks from now. I think the U.S. government was too slow to react to this, they should have had a plan in place. Because the U.S. government did not have a plan in place, my nephew has paid for it with his life."

Lauer:

"Let me just interrupt for a second. Obviously the U.S. has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists. We do have reports that up to 8,000 troops, U.S. and Iraqis, are out searching for your nephew and also reward money is being offered in Baghdad or in the area for any information leading to the finding of your nephew. Are you suggesting that you think the U.S. government should pay a ransom?"

MacKenzie didn't mince words:

"Yes. The ransom is available from Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party funds seized by the U.S. government. More than $100 billion in cash and gold, that the U.S. government apparently had plans to return to the government of Iraq. I would think that that money, part of it, could be used to pay ransom. That would not be coming out of U.S. taxpayer pockets, by the way. It could be paid out of the bank account where it now reposes. I think that that money should have been earmarked for this type of a hostage situation." Lauer again challenged the suggestion:

"Mr. MacKenzie, obviously you are dealing with this as a personal and a family tragedy. I can certainly understand that, but wouldn't that then make it very profitable for terrorists in Iraq and other parts of the world to kidnap westerners because they could reap huge amounts of money from it?" MacKenzie:

"Yes, but they are doing that anyway. I don't know if that would escalate or encourage them to kidnap more westerners and more U.S. soldiers. But I rather doubt it. My concern is the humanitarian concern. This money will be used of course by whoever's going to use it in the future and it won't go toward saving lives. I am more interested -- was more interested in seeing my nephew saved with some combination of ransom and prisoner exchange. Apparently the Prime Minister of Iraq planned to release these 2,500 mujahadeen without any so-called quid pro quo, something for something."

Lauer: "I'm sorry. Mr. MacKenzie, I'm sorry to interrupt. And I want to mention again there are some conflicting reports coming out of Baghdad. Our thoughts and prayers are with you and your family. We hope for a good outcome."

MacKenzie: "Thank you very much."

For all the criticism this column levels at the MSM in general and the Today show in particular, we're obliged to applaud Lauer for his courage in sensitive circumstances in standing up, politely but firmly, for a U.S. policy designed to prevent the taking of even more hostages.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Can't really agree with you. I believe that, to the contrary, this relative appreciated the opportunity to make his case. He was not the bereaved mother or wife being exploited by the cameras. He was, as noted, a very articulate, well-informed, composed person advocating his position.

[Fawn]

I was listening to Lauer and I literally stopped in my tracks when he asked that guy that question. I applaud lauer too.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Thanks for the confirmation. So I'm not hallucinating! ;-)

[Artemis Webb]

It is not understandable. These were not the ravings of a bereaved man. He made statements based on what was obviously some research.

Mr. MacKenzie deserves no sympathy for the danger and stupidity of his crackpot ideas.

[Luke Skyfreeper]

Blithering idiot alert.

[sgtbono2002]

The news agencies should leave family the hell alone so they can have some time to collect their thoughts after something as bad as this.

[elhombrelibre]

Good points.

[syriacus]

Thanks for the report! You are very fair and balanced in your reporting.

[Constantine XI Palaeologus]

Use of "Mujhadeen (sp?)" says it all. The guy's a whackjob.

[Luke Skyfreeper]

I mean, I understand that he wanted his beloved nephew back at any cost. And God, I hope I'm never in his shoes and never have to deal with such a situation.

But his proposal would, to an unbelievable degree, put at risk the lives of many, many more sons and daughters who are on the side of right.

[starfish923]

I don't like him because he goes a la Bill Clinton, which ever way the wind blows. Sorry. This time he says something you like....that's when I get nervous, when someone I dislike says something sane.
It COULD signal a change in him. I dunno.

[Blueflag]

OK, but how many times have YOU watched the news where some dweeb with a mike and a cameraman knock on the door of some grieving family, or meet some weeping sister on the street after her "good boy" nephew gang-banger was shot on the street? Did YOU think it was appropriate? "How do you feel Mr. XXXX after your wife put the kids in the minivan and drove it into the lake?" THAT'S what I am talking about.

The fct that this gentleman was composed (but unreasonable and illogical) was a chance event. The news people are always looking for the Next Cindy Sheehan.

N.B.: The fault is with the news organization, not the person being interviewed.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Don't know if you saw the interview, but MacKenzie was entirely composed. He had an impressive array of facts at his fingertips, and expressed them well. I'm sensitive to the notion that the media can exploit bereaved family members, but this was more of a case of Today giving a soapbox to someone who wanted to express a strong viewpoint.

[thoughtomator]

There's something sickeningly morbid about the fact of the interview... it feels like the prostitution of grief for profit.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Agreed, that certainly does happen, and it's regrettable. But this was not one of those cases.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

I'm repeating myself here, but IMHO this was not one of those cases. This was not the bereaved wife/mother, this was a highly articulate, composed, well-informed uncle being given a chance to make his case.

[rabidralph]

...and not release that information to the media. Heck, all journalists should have a tracking device in them.

[xzins]

see #16

I agree.

Why are the putting a mike into the face of a person in shock or grief?

(Unless their looking for some soundbite that'll sell)

[JCEccles]

This money will be used of course by whoever's going to use it in the future and it won't go toward saving lives.

It would buy a boatload of IEDs and an army of mercenary terrorists.

Leave it to the MSM to give a microphone and centerstage to the most emotionally unbalanced family member they could find willing to undermine the war in which these young men gave their lives.

[Blueflag]

hmmm "the prostitution of grief for profit" I like that.

I think Ann Coulter got 'busted' by the MSM for writing about people who did that rather famously. ;-)