Matt Lauer Picks & Chooses "consensus"

“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors”
– President William Jefferson Clinton 12/16/98

Karl Rove and Matt Lauer apparently went at it today about whether “Bush lied” about WMD.

Lauer has decided he will stick to the narrative established by the media and Democrat party:

ROVE: There were 110 Democrats who voted for the Iraq war resolution. 67 of those Democrats, including John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, on the floor of the Congress said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. So, he may be able to dismiss it in one snarky line, but I have, I have, I have the facts in here. . . . Look the intelligence was worldwide agreed that he had WMD. That he had ignored 14 resolutions following his surrender after Kuwait to account for his WMD. He had spent 12 years stiffing the international community. We now know because of two international reports by two international weapons inspectors, Kay and Doefler, that he was diverted tens of millions of dollars a year to Oil for, from the Oil for Food program to keep together the necessary dual-use-

LAUER: But agreement was not worldwide. Here’s from, from Bob Woodward’s book State of Denial. He writes in October of 2002, the top intelligence officer, Major General James “Spider” Marks, in charge of looking for WMD in Iraq looked at a list of 946 WMD sites and found quote, “He couldn’t find with confidence there were any weapons of mass destruction or stockpiles at a single site.”

ROVE: Well, that’s one, but there were many intelligence…

LAUER: But you said it was worldwide. There was disagreement!

Emphasis mine.

Rove is right, but he is wasting his time trying to get anyone in the media to admit that they were complicit in the building of a false narrative established for political considerations. But what I think is interesting is how malleable Matt Lauer can be on the issue of “consensus.” For close to a decade, he has accepted the notion that a “consensus” on “man-made global warming” has outweighed any and all differing opinions. Under no circumstances was credibility conferred upon questioners, even though “there was disagreement!”, serious disagreement, with the narrative.*

But now, in the case of Rove, and Bush, and Iraq and WMD, suddenly, “consensus” doesn’t mean much, because “there was disagreement!”

Hey, Matt, psssst! On AGW: “there was disagreement!” Real disagreement! Please tell Al Gore.

And while you’re telling Al Gore that “there was disagreement!” please ask yourself if all that breastbeating you and your co-horts did re “not asking enough questions in the lead-up to the Iraq war” may not come back to haunt you, in hindsight, on the “manmade global warming crisis.” And, ummm…on the Great Obama Hope & Change Presidency of Miracles, Signs and Wonders campaign hype, too.

The Media Double Standard continues: “Consensus” settles all doubt. “Consensus” trumps all questions, and reveals those who doubt to be morons. Except when suddenly it doesn’t.

That is all.

You can read the whole, pointless, fruitless Rove, Lauer exchange, here.

*Re-tooled for clarity’s sake.

INSTALANCHE! Thanks, Glenn!

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Terrye

    Oh yeah, hind sight and all that. As if there was any real disagreement when Clinton was president. No one questioned him when he signed the Iraqi Liberation Act.

  • Gayle Miller

    Matt Lauer is nothing but a pretty-boy news reader (and rapidly slipping over the hill at that) and he substitutes snark for serious journalistic chops. He’s be amusing if he weren’t so pathetic and dangerous! People actually watch this idiot for information! Tsk, tsk!

    The best pure journalism being found these days is on the Internet and, surprisingly, in the pages of the National Enquirer who have done the job most of the time that the MSM is too lazy or too biased to perform! Example? The John Edwards mistress story! They got it right and they got it verified!

  • Pingback: » Links To Visit – 03/09/10 There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword, the other is by debt. John Adams

  • Bender

    Barack “we’re not campaigning any more, the election is over” Obama, while out campaigning for the passage of ObamaCare despite overwhelming opposition, was heard to say: “Consensus? We ain’t got no consensus. We don’t need no consensus! I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ consensus!”

  • Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » FAMILIAR TROPES: Matt Lauer picks, chooses “consensus.”…

  • Robbins Mitchell

    Well,why should anyone expect anything different from one of Barokeydoke’s many telestooges?

  • John

    The definition of ‘consensus’ is general agreement or accord. There was clearly consensus that Iraq had WMDs. There is no consensus concerning Global Warming. Why? Because the scientific method rules out consensus.

    You develop a testable hypothesis and produce repeatable results, and you’re right. Everyone else is wrong. Doesn’t matter what the consensus is. In fact, science is littered with example of consensus — like the world was flat — just waiting for someone to prove it wrong.

    When the liberals talk about consensus with Global Warming, they’re using a political word, not a scientific word. And they’re revealing their true motives…

  • P. Aaron

    I wish that just once a conservative or Republican would ask the interviewer why they are so ill-informed.

    I wish I’d win the stinkin’ lotto too.

  • Jennifer

    Matt Lauer has little impact on anyone’s thinking and he has to spout the philosophy of his employers or he wouldn’t work there. It was much discussed by the Clinton administration…the idea that he had weapons or at least need to prove he didn’t. Even the Liberal media believed it before they decide not to believe it:

    It’s just a tired old debate and everybody on both sides knows the truth, but the Left is just being what they are, people so devoted to winning elections that they have politicized issues of national security.

  • Kasandra

    I think by now everyone except some Americans know George Bush lied his face off about WMD.

    Most Canadians didn’t give it any credibility at all considering it’s author!

  • Akatsukami

    Given that its author was the late Saddam Hussein, that’s very perspicacious of you.


    I voted for it, before I voted against it – link

  • Kissendra

    Most Canadians hate America and Americans. Thats because were smart and speak real English not Yankspeak. Oh yeah, we won the hockey gold medal! Ha Ha!

  • newguy40

    Cursed by Apollo never to be believed.
    Huh? Who’d a guessed?

  • Barry Dauphin

    Any evidence of previous doubt is now accepted as infallible and evidence that the administration “lied”. The Matt Lauers of the world are becoming less relevant. Rove was plugging his book and visits the Today Show. Lauer wants to believe he has ballz “standing up” to the “evil” Rove. Kabuki theater. I wasn’t sure many folks even watched the Today Show anymore.

  • Odysseus

    Fess up Kassandra, you’re really Matt, aren’t you?

  • jd

    Matt Lauer is not the brightest light in the room. Take his journalistic skills with a grain of salt.

  • greta

    Working on the putrid left leaning today show was the credentials that CBS was looking for when selecting its anchor Couric. The today show had more credibility when it featured J. Fred Muggs, the chimp, with Dave Garroway. It has been downhill ever since.

  • brooklyn

    OUTSTANDING offering Anchoress.

    “…they were complicit in the building of a false narrative established for political considerations.”

    So true, one of the biggest unethical cons of all time – especially considering how the Partisans in the MSM all preached a narrative that Saddam was such a threat when Bill Clinton was bombing Iraq during his Impeachment.

    Biden and Rodham Clinton, both Obama Appointees, voted for the use of force to liberate Iraq.

    Sadly, Sen. McCain and then Gov. Palin did not make a serious challenge on this issue, ceding to the Democrat Party manipulations, even implying at times with silence and apology that Iraq was a mistake. That was a foolish error we all paid for, and today we see the opposite being proved predictably true.

    Anytime some cede to this foolish mantra that suggests the USA should not be engaged in encouraging freedom – even fighting for it if need be – the World loses.

    That last General Election was embarrassing. And the true tragedy is, Obama meant it. It wasn’t a mere political ploy to debase the opposition to gain power. The Obama Doctrine, which mainly presents the USA as the problem, with Free Markets as a negative, which tries to explain away brutal oppression as a ‘cultural difference’, is a disaster for all.

    This Democratic Partisan narrative is just another emotive blindness born out of political bigotry for their perceived opposition. Some in the NYC area, actually believe Terrorism was born during the Bush Administration Era – having believed the denial of the Clinton fantasy. Some will still try to deny the reality of the the first bombing of the WTC which occured in 1993.

    This Partisan slant Mr. Lauer presented with Mr. Rove is dangerous for all. But I don’t feel challenging it is worthless. It is essential, to let these Partisans know, not everyone is fooled by the ‘con’. They may be able to demonize Mr. Rove enough to ignore the substance of his offering, but the truth has a way of getting through to far more than the Partisans in the MSM realize.

    Thank you for another great posting.

    Well done.

  • Terrye


    If the Canadians had such knowledge maybe they should have passed it along to Clinton and the UN in the 90s. The truth is there were several reasons for the war in Iraq, not the least of which was Saddam himself. If he were some innocent victim, all he had to do was come clean years earlier..instead he shot at our planes, covered up his wmd programs and defied more than a dozen UN force resolutions.

  • Bedford

    “I think by now everyone except some Americans know George Bush lied his face off about WMD.”

    Ah Kasandra. Bitterly, bitterly clinging to the liberal Dem narrative of choice. There are so many documented quotes from the Clintons and others of similar gravitas about their firm convictions that Iraq did have these weapons, to the extent of warranting risking American and British lives to bomb them, that to insist that President Bush should ignore the same intelligence smacks of delusion.

  • Manny L.

    Does anyone think the media has anywhere near given the same scrutiny to this disasterous Obamacare health plan as they pilloried and continue to pillory the Bush administration. Double standard is too soft a word. They are in essence working for the Democratic party.

    And weapons of mass destruction was only one of several reasons to invade Iraq. The primary motive was setting up a democracy in the middle east and second was ending the commitment to the no fly zones that was never ending. And yes, Saddam Hussien was supporting terrorists. He was not involved in 9/11 or necessarily with Al Quaida, but he was supporting middle eastern terrorism.

  • Pitbullll

    Anybody remember when the nitwits at NBC spent a week burning candles and pulling all kinds of other ridiculous stunts in order to “raise awareness” about global warming? Apparently Matt Lauer spent the week jetting around the globe to remote spots broadcasting segments on the dire situation the world is now in and how we’re all about to die.

    Yes. Matt Lauer and his crew of God knows how many, with God knows how much energy-guzzling lighting, computer and camera equipment, jetting around the globe, driving motorcades out to very unpopulated, uncivilized areas of the globe; all in order to educate us rubes about our evil carbon footprints that are ruining the earth.

    Uh huh.

    Are liberals just that stupid?

  • Lazarus Long

    Cursed by Apollo never to be believed.
    Huh? Who’d a guessed?”

    But Cassandra was right.

  • Bender

    After 9/11, when we saw what the enemies of this country are capable of, and we saw what it is like to lose thousands of people in a single day, Saddam Hussein was an unacceptable risk that we could no longer afford to simply sweep under the rug and hope that he wouldn’t do something catastrophic. Regime change in Iraq had been U.S. policy for years before Bush ever took office. After we were attacked, whether he was involved or not, it was time for him to go.

  • StrongBadToo

    @ Terrye:

    Don’t let Kassandra fool you – Canadians polled identical to Americans in the run up to the second war in Iraq – majority in favor. They were also the first to swallow the left’s political treason to use the war against W.

    Fickle lot, Canadians……

  • OldeForce

    Nope, no WMDs. And the Kurds were killed with spitballs, right?

  • peter jackson

    If Bush “lied” about WMD to the public, then it’s on YouTube. Could someone point to it please? And while you’re at it, can you find the video of Bush lying about Iraq being involved in 9/11?


  • Mark

    Iraqi Freedom was merely a consequence of the Iraqi government violating the conditions of the 1991 cease fire from Desert Storm. Those conditions were violated almost daily all through the 90s while Clinton had the reigns, and he only rarely did anything about it.
    I was there in 1997 and again in 1999 watching gun camera footage of my attached air wing as they engaged Iraqi SAM sites that locked up and in some cases launched SAMs at U.S. jets.
    WMD and the presence or lack thereof is a media generated meme that has never been aggressively countered by those in the know.

  • bandit

    If Saddam was in compliance with the UN why didn’t he ever try to have the sanctions lifted? Because it was easier to steal from Oil-for-Graft?

  • Doc

    Matt Lauer is a sniveling little worm. When does Katey Couric give him permission to retrieve his testicles from the jar?

    Well put Bender, twice.

    I’d only add that Bush and Rove made a mistake by not emphasizing Saddam’s ties to Arab terror, which went back a long time.

  • LoneStar78730

    …however, Kasandra is wrong….

  • AvantiBev

    Both conservatives (with the exceptions of Horowitz, Andrew McCarthy, Pam Gellar, and a few others) and the progressive-left-libs are still arguing about the weapons of mass destruction. How funny & how sad. Geert Wilders is on trial in his Netherlands for pointing out that the true WMD is the Quran. Jesus said in Matthew 24 that when the false prophets and messiahs came “even many of the elect” would be deceived.
    “Words, words, words..” Hamlet said. Yet when those words are whispered by the Dark One, the Prince of all Lies, into the ear of a meglomaniac in an Arabian cave, what power they have to lead to true destruction.

  • Elaine

    People just have to speak the truth. Today I saw Congressman Boren a democrat say he will not vote for healthcare and listed his reasons.

    Maybe, just maybe he will stick to his word and not vote for it and maybe, just maybe we will keep speaking the truth and finally the light will shine.

    Where there is despair let their be hope!
    (St. Francis)

    It seems like Obama is spreading a lot of despair these days – hope will prevail!

  • Pingback: uberVU - social comments

  • DamnWalker

    Someone needs to buy Matt and the dino-media a dictionary (or send them a link to!), so they can look up the difference between conscensus and unanimity. There WAS strong conscensus at that time that Saddam had WMD. There was NOT complete unanimity. Is there ever? But it would nice to see the purveyors of jaw-jaw know the proper usage and definition of words.

  • Maureen

    I am one Canadian that is very happy that Saddam is gone along with his corrupt government. Should have happened a long time ago – like 1990!!!

    I have also given up on the MSM – here is Canada we are saddled with the publicly funded CBC which never saw a dictator that they didn’t like.

  • Pingback: The Anchoress | A First Things Blog