Replies

Lauer: "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."

Notice the tactic, backing away from the statement when challeneged by Lauer, but at the same time throwing up emotional smoke screens (e.g., "humanitarian concern"..."more interested in saving my nephew"). If you take his response in a logical context, it's contradictory, but logic isn't the point, as Ann Coulter pointed out in her book.

I have to wonder if Ann Coulter hasn't had just a little effect on Lauer, there.

I'll grant the man (and his son) are victims, but that does not grant them the right to dictate policy in re dealing with terorists. Maybe Lauer 'got it'.

and maybe he is just trying desperately not to seem like a girlyman interviewer after Ann handed him his hat.