Rosie Anti-war Bedfellow Matthews Can Do Without

By Mark Finkelstein | May 23, 2007 | 20:53

Change font size: A | A

When it comes to anti-war politics, Rosie O'Donnell is one bedfellow Chris Matthews would gladly do without. The MSNBC host made that crystal clear on this afternoon's Hardball. Matthews played a clip of O'Donnell's recent slanging spate in which she unmistakably intimated to Elizabeth Hasselbeck that US troops are terrorists, responsible for 655,000 civilian deaths in Iraq [itself a grossly exaggerated figure in any case].

MSNBC HOST CHRIS MATTHEWS: While I generally sympathize with her point of view, her skepticism about this war, I do have a problem with her suggestion that we're the terrorists, which is clearly what the intent of that conversation was.

View video here.

Matthews then recruited to his viewpoint his guest panel comprised of Howard Fineman of Newsweek, Jill Zuckman of the Chicago Tribune and Washington Post editorial writer Jonathan Capehart.

MATTHEWS: Howard, I don't know about you, but we watched the tapes and it seemed she clearly said the American troops are the terrorists.
HOWARD FINEMAN [tongue firmly planted in cheek]: She supports the troops, who are terrorists.
MATTHEWS: Did she call American troops terrorists?

FINEMAN: Yes, there's no question.
JILL ZUCKMAN: It sounds like it to me.

Matthews then turned to his third guest, Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post.

MATTHEWS: Why is Rosie O'Donnell, who gives a bad name to people who question this war, I have to say, it is inevitably a problem in this country that people ruin the anti-war position by Jane Fonda behavior, by this kind of behavior. There are millions and millions, in fact the overwhelming majority question this war, oppose it, want to see our troops home. And then somebody like this comes out and creates an easy target for the hawks.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: It was as if Rosie picked this fight. Rosie is a bully on that show.

MATTHEWS: I will say it again. The anti-war position doesn't need that. Because attacking American soldiers as the bad guys when they're over there risking their lives and getting killed, and legs being blown off, for us, and to have them made the bad guys by us. The other sides's allowed to call them the bad guys. But if we do that, we're saying "you're risking your lives for nothing."

Concluded MATTHEWS: I don't know who she's trying to win with this argument, it's like she's a mole on the far right-wing side of the war, and she's figured out a way to make the war look better. I don't get it.

BONUS COVERAGE: RUMBLIN', BUMBLIN', STUMBLIN' JIM MORAN -- There was a priceless moment earlier, on the Tucker Carlson show. Tucker interviewed left-wing Dem congressman Jim Moran of Virginia, grilling him regarding the Dems' cave-in on the war, passing a bill funding continuing operations without imposing any timelines.

MSNBC HOST CARLSON: Can't you see why people who aren't sophisticated in the way of Washington might be confused when the Speaker of the House comes out and says this is the deal we've struck and by the way I don't support it? This is the deal that I struck, I did, Nancy Pelosi, along with Harry Reid and the anti-war left. This is our deal, but I'm not for it? Isn't that a little confusing?

REP. JAMES MORAN [D-VA]: Uh, I, well, uh, it's certainly, in the way and the context in which you put it, I can understand why people might be confused, but the reality is that it was the best that we could get.