Powered by i.TV
October 7, 2015

Matt Lauer Doesn't Need to Lower the Hammer on George W. Bush Tonight

by Joel Keller, posted Nov 8th 2010 2:00PM
Matt Lauer talks to George W. Bush in 'Decision Points' Monday 11/8 at 8PM on NBC
It's an axiom that's as old as television itself (maybe even older), but it's true: former presidents are much better interviews than sitting presidents. The reason isn't rocket science: an ex-president doesn't have to watch what he says, he doesn't have to worry about being re-elected or burning political bridges.

This is the big reason why I'm looking forward to Matt Lauer's interview with George W. Bush tonight, which airs at 8PM ET on NBC. It's Dubya's first interview in support of his memoir 'Decision Points,' which will be released tomorrow. From what I've read and seen in various sneak peeks, it's going to contain some interesting admissions from one of the most polarizing Chief Executives this country's ever had.

But, according to Brian Stelter in The New York Times, Lauer will not be grilling Bush on what went on during his eventful presidency. "The tone of the prime-time special is conversational, not prosecutorial," wrote Stelter, "and for that reason, "Lauer/Bush" is not likely to join "Frost/Nixon" in the public imagination."

That's absolutely OK, though; Lauer doesn't need to lower the hammer on Bush in order for this to be an effective and fascinating interview to watch, for a number of reasons:

He's not president anymore.
Even Bush's most ardent critics -- and by the time he left office, there were many of them -- have to realize that it's counterproductive to grill a guy who's been out of office for almost two years. Whether you liked his policies and decisions or thought they were atrocious, what's done is done as far as Bush's presidency is concerned.

I'd much rather hear about his thought process behind some of the decisions he made, as well as how he was conflicted or if he went through any emotional turmoil, than listen to him be goaded into admitting he made a mistake. For instance, Bush told Lauer that he was a "dissenter" on the decision on whether to invade Iraq. If that's true, wouldn't it be interesting to find out how his opinion was changed by Dick Cheney and other members of his team? At this juncture, it's much more fascinating to hear about the behind-the-scenes machinations of a presidency from the man in charge rather than continue to grumble about decisions that were made years ago, as costly as those decisions may continue to be.

We'll find out what kind of ex-President Bush is going to be. Bush has mostly stayed out of the media spotlight since he left office, doing personal appearances and going to Rangers games. Unlike Cheney and Karl Rove, he refuses to openly criticize President Obama, and will likely maintain that stance. But this interview, and some of the other ones Bush will do to promote the book, will go a long way to letting the public know what kind of ex-President he's going to be.

In the era of electronic media, we've seen all sorts of ex-presidents; ones that rarely if ever made public appearances (Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan), ones that became more stately and dignified than when they were in office (Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush), ones that loosened up (Bill Clinton), and ones that felt free to criticize those who were currently in power (Jimmy Carter).

Judging from another preview of the interview, where Bush tells Lauer he came to his pro-life views after his mother had a miscarriage and showed him a jar containing the ill-fated fetus, it feels like Bush wants to open up a bit. He showed that element during his presidency, but that desire to open up may now extend to how he felt as he made those nation-changing decisions after 9/11.

There's enough political rancor on TV these days. This interview, and Bush's responses, will be picked apart and scrutinized for days after it airs. Fox will likely think Lauer was too tough on Bush, MSNBC will likely think Lauer lobbed softballs, CNN will likely put up a silly graphic to show how neutral they are. Lauer will play the interview down the middle of those two extremes, which, according to Stelter, is why Bush's people picked him to do the first interview. "We're living in a time when some of television news is partisan," 'Today' executive producer Jim Bell told Stelter, "and Matt and the 'Today' show are decidedly not so."

I'm looking for an informative interview, one that gives some insight into the mind of a guy who used to be the most powerful person in the world. If Lauer plays it as down-the-middle as these previews suggest, viewers are going to get just that.

What do you hope Lauer and Bush talk about during their interview tonight?

(Follow @joelkeller on Twitter.)

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum


Filter by:

I completely agree with the article. I watched the interview tonight and was happy to see that Lauer was respectful.

Look, I'm a conservative and I'll be the first to admit that things went terribly wrong during GWB's time in office. However, one thing I disagree with and will never accept is the personal animosity toward the man.

I don't for a second think his actions regarding Katrina were race based. I think that's a silly and hurtful notion.

Secondly, I really do believe that he thought there were WMD in Iraq... and that's his point. He admits there were none, but he also points out that he truly believed there were... and he acted on the information he had then, not information learned later... hindsight is a wonderful thing, but hardly helpful when you're making the big decisions... and that's the point... he made a decision based on what he knew. He didn't lie us into a war. Did he use information that wasn't factual as the basis for his heartfelt decision? Sure... is that a lie? No. A lie would have been him knowing the reality and telling us otherwise... and that's just not how it happened, and never has been illustrated as otherwise...

So, that's really why I don't think there should by any rancor or hatred pushed George Bush's way. He tried and tried to do his best with the information he had. You can second guess that now, and you can question the wisdom of the actions then, but I don't think anyone should honestly try to question his motives... I mean, the man clearly loves the country and wanted what was best for it. If he was just a partisan who cared about himself and his own, he would've been out there trying to take down Obama... and he hasn't done that... Why? Because he understands that even though what Obama might be doing is wrong for the country, what Obama is doing is what Obama thinks is legitimately right... he won't question his patriotism, his motives as a good person, etc... as it should be. Once we actually think our leaders are out to destroy our civilization, what civilization is left to destroy?

Dislike the policy, but don't hate the man.

November 08 2010 at 10:39 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Mike's comment

I simply expect ore from the president. If he was unsure, he should have delayed the war. If he was not unsure, then he led us into it with deliberate statements that are simply untrue. That is one definition of lying.
He never said he was wavering when he led our soldiers to a slaughter for . . .
I simply expect more from the president because his beliefs and statements carry more weight than any other leader in the world. The fact no WMDs were ever discovered began the thought process that this guy wasn't very bright.
I don't ever again want a war to start on what someone believes to be true as opposed to proven facts. You lead our young people to be killed and then you continue it because they were killed and conveniently forget who put them in harm's way.
Moreover, the expense of this uneccesary war helped dig the defiict hole.
He cannot be absolved of all of the above.

November 09 2010 at 12:20 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

This is the dumbest thing I've read all week. Congratulations.

November 08 2010 at 2:50 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to rocktar's comment
Joel Keller

Care to elaborate?

November 08 2010 at 3:24 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Follow Us

From Our Partners