[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!

[P.O.E.]

I've probably watched a total of 20 minutes of the Today show - ever! Most of them just flipping by on the remote.

Amazing that 5 of those minutes just happened to be the interview with Kay.

[Cosmo]

Fomenting war is , well, fomenting war, even if your real intentions are to hide in a hole when someone calls your bluff.


i'd say the Bush adminstration looks golden right now

[Tribune7]

This is great. The Dems are toast.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

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.

Could this be the reason for his "resignation" from his post? To get on the chat circuit and bang the drum for the good guys?

[Travis McGee]

Are drums of precurser chemicals found in NBC bunkers getting nobody's attention?

[MizSterious]

Thanks so much for taking all this down. Great work!

[sweetliberty]

One thing that it seems everyone keeps failing to address is the non-cooperation of Saddam with the UN inspecters to show proof that the KNOWN WMD's has been destroyed. There was never any doubt that they existed at one time and were even declared. So if they're not there and they weren't moved, what happened to them?

[Valin]

Bump and bookmark.
Good job

[doug from upland]

Great report!!!

[ilgipper]

I seems like Kay is going a few steps further than his job description requires. He seems to be making final conclusions on 'what happened'. What he is doing seems to overstep his role. He is leaving the job at a time when the work is unfinished, but he is talking like the search teams have wrapped up and are heading home. He should speak in speculative terms, but instead speaks in definitive terms about how the scientists simply didn't deliver. That may be the case, but we sure don't 'know' that at this point. They could be buried, moved out of the country, or sold.

Seems to me like he is positioning himself for an upcoming book release or something.

[cookcounty]

"Lauer's supportive tone was almost as equally surprising. "

Probably, Lauer was just flummoxed and confused, in which case the preferred fall-back approach for a TV "Cocking Head" is to smile and be agreeable.

[demlosers]

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."

I would have bet the whole planet on this one, there never was doubt.

[demlosers]

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'm sooo disappointed...haha.

Don't worry, those two will be back on track after their next NY cocktail party.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

You will love this.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

bump for later bookmarking

[NonValueAdded]

Glenn Beck is all over this today and doing a darn good job of analysis. I'd say this is the best I've ever heard him! Does anyone subscribe to his insider service? It would be nice to get some of what he's saying "on the record," our record. Also, let Glenn know today's show is a keeper for his "best of" archives.

[ZULU]

Go to http://www.billoreilly.com.

He's running a poll on whether Bush should admit there were no weapons of mass destruction. This poll should be freeped and O'Reilly was wrong last night in his analysis.

Saddam was working on WMD. That's a given. We DON'T know how far he got or where if anywhere, anything he may have produced went. THAT'S STILL an open question.

THAT in itself was enough to invade Iraq, especially considering his blatant violation of the armistice agreement at the end of Persian Gulf War I. He violated his agreement with the U.N. and fired on American and allied surveillance aricraft.

Also, a book is being released soon, authored by reporter Jana Davis in which she lays out a strong case for Iraqi involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing. It would hardly surprise me if Saddam wasn't involved in some way with the World Trade attack. He might not be a Wahhabi, but a common enemy makes friends of the oddest bedfellows.

Iraq was a good target to pick in the Islamofascist world because it was ruled by a brutal hated dictator who was actively conspiring against us.

From a geographic perspective, it was also a good target. If we can install a pro-western Democratic government there, it is situated right between three other rogue anti-western terrorist havens - Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria. It has great strategic value and can and should be used to destablize even further the regime of the Ayatollahs in Iran, shake down the Syrians and intimidate the Saudis.

Finally, Iraq was a lynchpin between Lbyia, Syria, and possibly Saudian radicals and nuclear weapons providers in Pakistan and North Korea. Libya already crapped out of conspiring - or at least so they currenly plead. Thoughts of another night attack by American aircraft probably gave Khadaffi the willies.

Bush was right in selecting Iraq. We were right in attacking it, and the only reasonable criticisms, if any, can be levelled at the post-war occupation and the way we are now proceeding to democratize that country. But it took us from the early 1600's to the late 1700's to formulate our own Republic, so we shouldn't expect people who are even more politically atavistic than 17th and 18th century Americans to take a lot of time to get into the 20th century.

[aruanan]

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."

Or, more accurately, "...it was attracting terrorists like flies to a big wet turd."

[YaYa123]

Don't give up your day job. Stay skeptic par excellance!

"thoroughly fair" ? Lauer was thoroughly fair only because Kay left no room for subtle innuendo. It was as if Kay came out swinging today because his first interview was so politically twisted by hopeful democrats and media.

I watched another great (and surprising) voice last night in protecting Bush from Democrat crazed blame. You're not going to believe it. The very liberal republican Peter King was soooooo articulate and specific in defending the motives of the administration, and he had to fight both the lefty that was on, and Scarborough, who kept interrupting him. But King was determined, and he finished his thoughts. (Scarborough is such an amateur at this.)

I missed TODAY this morning, but MSNBC has been replaying snippets all day long. The record is now clear, Kay has made it so. But.... Let's not hold our collective breaths waiting for the media to challenge democrats who are deceptively calling for Bush's head on a platter.

Oh and another bonus from this afternoon: President Bush and the head of Polish government took questions today in the White House. The guy told reporters Hans Blix had visited with him before the war and told him there was no doubt Saddam had WMD or the capability of getting them. (Love bitchslapping Blix!)

[Aggie1]

Most seem to miss the point (rather the FACT). That without a doubt, NOT ONE SHREAD OF DOUBT, Iraq had WMD's!
Remember 20,000 Kurds were gassed with WMD's!! Now with that said, can we verify the WMD's were destroyed and the capability and aparatus to make more dismantled? NO! That should be topic number one for the weapons inspectors.

Kay should have made that point. They knew they had them at one point and couldn't verify they were destroyed. EVERY credible intelligence agency in the world thought he still had them. Therefore, you MUST assume they still exist. To do otherwise risks unthinkable calamity.

Of course we all know that if Bush hadn't acted they would be accusing him of not having the courage to do what was needed in disarming Iraq. I can just hear it now..."We need a real leader that can face up to Saddam, I am that person. Not afraid to ...blah, blah, blah."