Sheehan: 'I'd Rather Live Under Chavez than Bush', Norah Gives Cindy Rough Ride

Hardball/NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[governsleastgovernsbest]

by Mark Finkelstein

July 5, 2006

As James Taranto suggested Monday in his WSJ 'Best of the Web' column, at some point you *can* question a person's patriotism. Cindy Sheehan surely passed that point long ago. But just in case there was any doubt, Sheehan made things clear this evening, flatly stating that she'd rather live under Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez than George Bush.

Sheehan made her comments during a Hardball appearance, during which guest host Norah O'Donnell, sitting in for Chris Matthews, gave her a surprisingly rough ride. At one point, O'Donnell asked: "Why go stand by side by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela? Why do that? Would you rather live under him than George Bush?

Sheehan: "Yes. Hugo Chavez is not a dictator like you introduced him. He's been democratically elected eight times. He is not anti-American, he has helped the poor people of America. He has sent aid to New Orleans, he has sold heating oil to disadvantaged people in America at low cost, and the people of his country love him."

The exchange over Chavez capped a rugged line of questioning to which O'Donnell subjected Sheehan. Other excerpts:

O'Donnell: "Americans may hate the war but they don't necessarily hate the president. How do you expect to get change by going around the world and trashing the President of the United States?"

Sheehan: "I don't hate the president either, and I don't trash the president. I trash the president's foreign policy."

O'Donnell: "But you called him the biggest terrorist in the world, so you are trashing the president."

Sheehan: "Well he says a terrorist is somebody that kills innocent men, women and children."

O'Donnell: "You have just begun a two-month hunger strike. Isn't this really just more of a publicity stunt?"

Norah later observed: "You claim not to be in the fringes, not to be an extremist." She then challenged Sheehan to name members of Congress who support her call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

Sheehan claimed bi-partisan support, citing Republican congressmen Ron Paul and Walter Jones, and on the Dem side Charley Rangel and John Conyers.

When Sheehan mentioned John Kerry as an example of senatorial support, O'Donnell shot back: "the bill Sen. Kerry has proposed went down in flames in the Senate."

Continued O'Donnell: "What you're calling for is in fact an extreme position. There are very few members of congress who support immediate withdrawal. You would, if you could, fly a bunch of planes over there, pick up all our troops, and take them home tomorrow."

Sheehan claimed there is an "Out of Iraq Caucus" in congress with 70 members calling for an immediate withdrawal.

In any case, an interesting exchange. Sudden surge of hawkishness from Norah, or perhaps a subliminal suggestion to Dems, as a matter of electoral strategy, not to associate themselves with Sheehan?

[60Gunner]

Anyone want to lay odds that O'Donnell never subs for that slop artist Matthews again?

[60Gunner]

It's typical, though, is it not? Libs have an amazing talent for overplaying their hands, and for painting themselves into a tight little corner. The American people are not gullible- as evidenced by the 2004 elections. They know a treasonous fruad when they see one.

Yet the liberals- and the press they control- are too busy propping up the next big fraud- PIAPS herself- to learn the main lesson from '04, which is that the only people who believe them are on the fringes of our society. One look at the 2004 election map makes that point clear.

[60Gunner]

Hey hey hey. Don't insult us RNs!