A member of the American Pravda strikes again and shows his true colors. It's time many of these biased news reporters join the line of the unemployed.
Democrats and their allies in the American Pravda have rewritten history, but we have proof that it's a sham, thanks to YouTube. It wasn't Bush that lied about WMD, but rather Democrats who lied about Bush.
Read about the terrible reporting by Today's host Matt Lauer, via Gateway Pundit:
Today’s Reminder: Matt Lauer Is a Leftist Political Hack & Liar (Video)
"On Monday, leftist Today Show host Matt Lauer interviewed Karl Rove and pushed the leftist line that George Bush lied America into the Iraq War; that Bush made up the weapons of mass destruction charges against Saddam Hussein.
NewsBusters has the transcript and video:
ROVE:Let’s stop right there. He said one sentence. I devote an entire chapter to showing that Bush did not lie about Iraq. In fact, I quote Democrats. 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.
LAUER: What you write in the book is that the President, President Bush, would not have invaded Iraq if he had known there were no weapons of mass destruction. And what you write is-
LAUER: “Would the Iraq war have occurred without WMD? I doubt it. Congress was very unlikely to have supported the use-of-force resolution without the threat of WMD.” But since the war Karl, you know so many people have come forward saying there was intelligence, there was intelligence pointing that Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction, but there was also intelligence pointing in the other direction and there were voices of dissent, and those voices were ignored so the President could make his case.
ROVE: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!
ROVE:There was, there was a consensus. It doesn’t imply that everybody agreed, but it implies that the vas-, the preponderance of evidence and the majority of agreement was that there were WMD. And look, this is a bipartisan agreement. It was Al Gore and Bill Clinton, as well as Republicans who said he had WMD. And look…
Matt Lauer was, of course, just regurgitating the leftist lie that George Bush made up the weapons of mass destruction story in order to go to war with Iraq. Unfortunately, Lauer forgot that we live in the age of YouTube and the internet and his lies can be fact-checked in a number of seconds.
Lauer 'forgot' that every democrat was saying the same thing as Bush in 2002-2003 and spoke in even harsher terms against Saddam and his WMD.
But this won’t sway Lauer. He’ll repeat the same lie the next time a conservative comes on the show to be interviewed on Iraq.
More… Chip Bennett added:
'Obviously, Matt Lauer doesn’t understand the difference between “worldwide” and “universal”.
Coincidentally, I wonder how one might compare and contrast Lauer’s opinion of the pre-Iraq-war WMD consensus with today’s Anthropogenic Global Warming “consensus”? For the former, one single dissenter destroys the credibility of the consensus; while for the latter, the matter of consensus is settled no matter how numerous the dissenters.'"