On the March 19 edition of NBC's Today, co-host Matt Lauer promised “a look back and a look forward” on the war in Iraq, noting that "[a]s the war enters its fifth year, America is shell-shocked. The casualties staggering [and] the price tag in the hundreds of billions." Lauer then asked: “Is the war worth it, and is there a chance for victory?” However, in purporting to explore the four-year-old war, the show's hosts and reporters advanced misinformation regarding the size of President Bush's troop increase, the potential effect of pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, and the state of Saddam Hussein's weapons program prior to the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion:

• Size of the troop increase. Running through a timeline of some of the more significant events resulting from the Iraq war, co-host Meredith Vieira noted Hussein's execution in December 2006 and added: “Two weeks later, President Bush committed more than 20,000 additional troops to the war over the objections of the Iraq Study Group and Democrats on Capitol Hill.” Vieira did not mention, however, that the size of Bush's troop increase has risen by thousands more since he originally announced the plan in January. On March 16, the American Forces Press Service quoted a Defense Department official as stating that "[t]he total number of U.S. servicemembers who will be part of the surge in Iraq will be about 28,000 overall." Additionally, a March 19 Washington Post article reported:

In January, after years of fluctuating deployments, President Bush told the nation that an additional 21,500 U.S. troops were needed to quell escalating violence in Baghdad. As of Friday, that total had reached 28,700.

• The argument for withdrawal. In his subsequent report on the politics of the Iraq war, NBC News White House correspondent David Gregory stated that “the debate over a withdrawal deadline [has] stalled” in Congress, adding that “the question is whether satisfying an anti-war public is worth the risk of even greater carnage in Iraq and in the region should troops pull out too soon.” Gregory's “question” assumes that the debate over U.S. involvement in Iraq is limited to only two factors: public clamoring for troop withdrawal versus “the risk of even greater carnage ... should troops pull out too soon.” But just the day before, on the same network's edition of Meet the Press, former Rep. Tom Andrews (D-ME) argued in favor of redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq, not simply to “satisfy[] an antiwar public,” as Gregory suggested on Today, but in order to “take our kids out of harm's way who find themselves in the middle of a civil war.”

Nonetheless, Gregory presented only two scenarios -- succumb to public demand for withdrawal or remain and avoid the “risk of even greater carnage.” Then, in answering his question, Gregory only aired a clip from former assistant secretary of defense Richard Perle, who asserted that “if we pull out of Iraq, it will be a huge victory for those who want to destroy us.” He provided no opposing view. Moreover, in asserting that withdrawal from Iraq would risk “greater carnage ... in the region,” Gregory ignored the argument by Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), also made on Meet the Press, that the United States should be “redeploying but remaining in the region” because “2 million have overflowed [Iraq's] border where they don't want to have that instability continue.”

• Saddam's quest for WMD. During an interview with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Lauer noted that “it turns out” that Saddam did not have any weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but went on to baselessly claim that "[w]e don't know if he was in the process of acquiring them" during the run-up to the war. Lauer then left unchallenged Rice's similar claim that "[i]t was clear" before the 2003 invasion “that [Hussein] was continuing to pursue” WMD. In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, the Iraq Survey Group's final report -- more commonly known as the Duelfer report -- specifically addressed the state of Saddam's WMD programs at the time of the invasion." It noted that “Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability -- which was essentially destroyed in 1991 -- after sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized,” but that Iraq “had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions.”

From the March 19 edition of NBC's Today:

LAUER: As the war enters its fifth year, America is shell-shocked. The casualties staggering, the price tag in the hundreds of billions. Is the war worth it, and is there still a chance for victory? A look back and a look forward today, Monday, March 19, 2007.

[...]

VIEIRA: Just before the end of 2006, a cell phone video showed the world a sight that many Iraqis thought they'd never see: the execution of Saddam Hussein. Two weeks later, President Bush committed more than 20,000 additional troops to the war over the objections of the Iraq Study Group and Democrats on Capitol Hill. The debate over that decision and on the future of U.S. involvement itself continues as American troops carry on their in efforts in a war that, today, enters its fifth year.

[...]

GREGORY: For Democrats, however, the politics of war also create a trap. Given the president's strong political standing during the war debate, few dared oppose him. Now those running for the White House are looking for cover.

FORMER SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC): I was wrong, and I've taken responsibility for that.

SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY): If we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote, and I never would have voted to give this president that authority.

GREGORY: With the debate over a withdrawal deadline stalled, the question is whether satisfying an anti-war public is worth the risk of even greater carnage in Iraq and in the region should troops pull out too soon.

PERLE: I believe that if we pull out of Iraq, it will be a huge victory for those who want to destroy us.

GREGORY: Four years later, it's also striking how polarized the debate over the war has begun [sic] with Democrats and Republicans exchanging accusations about lying, about unpatriotic behavior, as again the focus is on how to get U.S. troops back home.

[...]

LAUER: You go back to Saddam Hussein and, of course, it turns out that he did not possess weapons of mass destruction. We don't know if he was in the process of acquiring them. So to get rid of him, even if now we have a democratically elected government, was it worth the cost of 3,200 American lives and some $350 billion?

RICE: Well, first of all, one has to recognize that those are lives that are irrevocably lost for their loved ones and for the country, and we have to acknowledge that sacrifice, but nothing of value is ever won without sacrifice. And Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction when we invaded Iraq -- when we invaded Kuwait in 1991. It was clear that he was continuing to pursue them. We don't know where he would have come out, but we do know that this was a bloody tyrant who had used weapons of mass destruction before against his people and against his neighbors.