Reagan's War, Not Charlie Wilson's

Investor's Business Daily ^ | December 24, 2007 | IBD

[CutePuppy]

Reagan's War, Not Charlie Wilson's

Media Bias: Hollywood would have us believe that Democrats defeated the evil empire in Afghanistan, and that President Reagan played only a minor role and even helped pave the way to 9/11.

If you think Hollywood's idea of a Christmas movie being one about the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan is strange, even stranger is the plot line. "Charlie Wilson's War," which opened Friday, manages to reduce the president who won the Cold War to a background footnote.

Charlie Wilson was a pro-abortion, Equal Rights Amendment-supporting congressman widely known as "the liberal from Lufkin." To his credit, he did play a role in facilitating support to the Afghan mujahadeen. But it is he who should be the historical footnote.

In his book, "Ronald Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime," Lou Cannon notes how Reagan "expressed revulsion of the brutal destruction of Afghan villages and such Soviet policies as the scattering of mines disguised as toys that killed and maimed Afghan children." He did not need much convincing to aid the Afghan resistance.

Cannon credits Undersecretary of Defense Fred Ikle and CIA Director William Casey with allaying any concern that providing Stinger missiles to the mujahadeen might lead to the missiles' capture and copying by the Soviets. Also involved, says Cannon, was a bipartisan coalition "led by Texas Democrat Charlie Wilson in the House and New Hampshire Republican Gordon Humphrey in the Senate."

So you have at least five players, including Reagan, involved — four of them Republican conservatives. Ikle notes: "Senior people in the Reagan administration, the president, Bill Casey, (Defense Secretary Caspar) Weinberger and their aides deserve credit for the successful Afghan covert action program, not just Charlie Wilson." So guess which one Hollywood makes a movie about?

.....

[JasonC]

Worse, it conveniently leaves out the reason the US was not involved in the aftermath, which is that the left's greatest hero of all time, Gorbachev, made future non-involvement by the US, directly or indirectly, a condition of the pull out of Soviet troops, in direct summit negotiations with Reagan. We did not have the option to control the aftermath. The deal was, the Soviets would pull out their troops but could still fund their allies, if we would stop funding their opponents. Reagan took the deal, rightly.

The left will never admit this, because now they need the whole WOT to be blamed on Reagan and the CIA. It is all revisionist nonsense, the left has provided a solid noise wall of slander and misinformation for a couple of years running now, in every single war themed picture they have made. Then they wonder why they all flop at the box office.

Personally I don't just avoid these movies, I blacklist any actor or director connected with any of them in any way, for the rest of my life.

[reg45]

Reagan won the war, Charlie Wilson was just a profiteer.

[reg45]

If they spent eight hours in the makeup department, anyone (except perhaps Helen Thomas) would look good.

[reg45]

Don't write off all of Tom Hanks' work, his astronaut stuff (Apollo Thirteen and From The Earth to the Moon) was great.

[CutePuppy]

You have a great imagination.

Thank you.

I had never heard of Aaron Sorkin and I never would have guessed he was a lefty from watching it.

I am surprised you have never heard of Aaron Sorkin of West Wing and (with Rob Reiner) American President and A Few Good Men fame among others, that explains why you "never would have guessed he was a lefty". Yes, that movie was heavily edited and toned down and is being marketed this way, because of both recent flops of anti-American and anti-Iraq war movies and the legal action threatened by real hero of Charlie Wilson's actions regarding Afghanistan. They simply rewrite history by giving all the credit to Charlie Wilson, whose real part was being used to get the congressional funding for covert ops in Afghanistan. This IBD article is a small step in correcting the impression the movie and its promotion are trying to create, while not diminishing his role in it... Al Gore took credit for the "initiative in creating the Internet" when he voted for NFS and asked for bigger NFSnet funding, ergo Al Gore "invented the Internet" - should the movie be coming soon?

For example, Julia Roberts in the promo interview, couldn't even bring herself to say that it was about defeating Soviets in Afghanistan because of the ideology and the regime, rather she said they needed help "because the fight wasn't fair"...

Re THC program, I was looking forward to it and was quite disappointed that this was not an independent review of historic events along the lines of their Hollywood vs Reality program, but rather that it was the same story about Charlie Wilson "winning the war", told to us by same Charlie Wilson and same Aaron Sorkin - that, while, of course, toned down and a bit more humble for more sophisticated THC viewers, it nevertheless was more of a movie promotion and Charlie Wilson's promotion than real history and his place in it - so it's no wonder that they showed everything that promoted the perception that he singlehandedly "won the war" with the help of the "rogue" CIA agent ("and three other people") and a compassionate "Texas socialite" whose occasional job involved a belly dance in front of powerful Egyptian.

Please, read the rest of this thread, as well as posts by flattorney on this thread and what had been the intent of making the movie :
History Channel 2 Hour Documentary Premier: The True Story of Charlie Wilson ,
particularly his post #152 and #193, but entire thread is enlightening. Please, see the THC special again, maybe you'll see it now in different light.

Also, you can find my posts on why we should not be ecstatic about Hollywood failing to slime us this time (not for the lack of trying), and simply settling in the movie just for taking/stealing/giving most of the credit for success in Afghanistan and fall of the Soviet Empire to one of their own "flawed, boozing, snorting, southern" (D-TX). Oh well, a pat on the back to Reagan for finally giving go-ahead on the Stinger missiles, but then he and GHW Bush "abandoned" and "lost" Afghanistan to Osama bin Laden, which led to 9/11, as we all know... from "history", as written by Aaron Sorkin and Oliver Stone and Michael Moore...

Regards.

[KC_Conspirator]

We have the same taste in women I see.

[TigersEye]

I am surprised you have never heard of Aaron Sorkin of West Wing and (with Rob Reiner) American President and A Few Good Men fame among others,...

A Few Good Men is one of my favorite movies. I never even wondered who made it or what they thought about life. Movies aren't that important. I've never even seen a promo of West Wing. I don't watch any MSM.

... that explains why you "never would have guessed he was a lefty".

Implicit in that statement is the acknowledgment that I wouldn't have seen any evidence of Sorkin's leftist leanings in the interviews on THCs documentary.

They simply rewrite history by giving all the credit to Charlie Wilson, whose real part was being used to get the congressional funding for covert ops in Afghanistan.

That is your characterization of it. I saw plenty to show that he was the major mover of aiding the Mujahadeen effort. Including the enthusiastic praise of Joanne Herring’s, the other woman who helped him shmooz the right people and one of his CIA buddies. I didn't see anybody faking their admiration and gratitude to Charlie Wilson and those were just some of the people that were helping him. Those old Afghans weren't faking their respect and gratitude either. Those old guys never faked anything in their lives.

It's a movie, based on a book written about one person's unique life and highly successful personal mission to help the Afghans. That was his little gig in the Cold War. And his wild life. It's just sour grapes to complain that they didn't work Ronald Reagan into the 90 minutes of film.

The rest of your post is really a little condescending. I have read every post up until this one of yours. Every word. Including your personal drama theory.

There is no doubt that everyone involved in the movie and the documentary are Hollywood lefty types although I don't know if they're really the far-lefty hardcore types. But I am aware of spin when I see it. I can see very well what is substantive and what isn't and there is no doubt in my mind that CW carried the water on Afghanistan and deserves the credit and praise he's getting. The people that helped him and the people he was trying to help think so. They didn't exactly hide any warts on THC. Or at least they showed plenty.

I just don't see the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy here that you do.

[CutePuppy]

Movies aren't that important.

Then there is not much to discuss, because the thread is about the movie, and yet you directed 3 posts to me regarding the movie before I responded. Apparently, this movie was important enough to get the editorial comment in IBD, which usually doesn't comment on movies, except on a "business" side of Hollywood it did notice the big box-office failure of recent political flops. Which is why I posted it.

I've never even seen a promo of West Wing. I don't watch any MSM.

I never saw it "live", on "regular" TV, for the same reason. I did watch reruns on A&E cable channel, few years after live run, including "marathons", which may have helped to see and be amazed at shallow, condescending treatment of its audience, as well as huge inconsistencies in both the story lines which is less important, if at all. Let's just say the show "knew" and was tailored to its intended [shallow] audience.

Implicit in that statement is the acknowledgment that I wouldn't have seen any evidence of Sorkin's leftist leanings in the interviews on THCs documentary.

No, it's not, but it's starting to get personal, petty and off the topic.

That is your characterization of it.

Of course, what I was describing was my opinion, so it was my characterization, if you will. Most of our posts here are opinions, unless we specify or imply that we state the facts.

I saw plenty to show that he was the major mover of aiding the Mujahadeen effort. .... I didn't see anybody faking their admiration and gratitude to Charlie Wilson and those were just some of the people that were helping him. Those old Afghans weren't faking their respect and gratitude either. Those old guys never faked anything in their lives.

Of course, that's exactly what they wanted you to see and why I said that I was disappointed with this "infomercial" on THC - it looked more like promotion of the movie and Charlie Wilson by Wilson and Sorkin than real history of Afghanistan's operation - that's what "promotion" is supposed to be about, and that's what I said it looked like. All "infomercials" are like that. We don't disagree here.

That was his little gig in the Cold War. And his wild life. It's just sour grapes to complain that they didn't work Ronald Reagan into the 90 minutes of film.

See post #82. That's not how it's billed, advertised, promoted, implied or was even originally slated to be in the movie, not as little gig. But we'll chalk it up to my great imagination.

The rest of your post is really a little condescending. I have read every post up until this one of yours. Every word. Including your personal drama theory.

It was not condescending at all, and was not meant to be. I didn't know if you read the THC thread as well, which goes in more detail about THC program and the "making" of the movie which didn't get covered much in this thread. It's exactly the same post I have expressed several times with others and nobody else found it condescending. maybe they just didn't bother to respond. But that's your characterization, so sorry if I offended you.

But I am aware of spin when I see it. I can see very well what is substantive and what isn't...

Good for you, but most / average moviegoers aren't and can't - this movie is directed at them. To them this, and this alone will be The History of "How the Soviets Lost in Afghanistan and Who Brought Down the Soviet Empire". But I have a great imagination.

They didn't exactly hide any warts on THC. Or at least they showed plenty.

Of course, again we agree. They don't want to lie and make Charlie into a saint, it would not fly and besides, after Bill Clinton's escapades in the White House, what is better than to give [my quote from the post] "... most of the credit for success in Afghanistan and fall of the Soviet Empire to one of their own "flawed, boozing, snorting, southern" (D-TX)." That's exactly what's shown in the movie, THC, and exactly how it's advertised.

I just don't see the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy here that you do.

Well, I guess, I could complain that it's your [condescending] [and direct] characterization of me (unlike which I never made about you), but that would be petty and off topic, so I won't. I don't believe so much in Vast Left Wing as "Conspiracy" as much as it is a "Way of Life". And they are pretty good at living it, too. That's why "they" admire Bill Clinton so much, he was such a good salesman of it.

But movies - good, bad, incomplete or misleading - are not that important to argue about and screw up relationships.

Regards.

[TigersEye]

Wow! You really are paranoid.

[guinnessman]

I used to be a fan of Tom Hanks, until he starred in The DaVinci Code

After that, I vowed that I would never see another Tom Hanks movie again.

[CutePuppy]

BTW, THC (The History Channel) has done a great job of dissecting The Da Vinci Code and gave a voice to authors of several books, one of which was suing Dan Brown for plagiarism in England, but failed to win the case.

I may have been more interested in the movie itself (I'll never know for sure), if I had not seen several great series on THC on The Da Vinci Code, also with Beyond The Da Vinci Code, based on book Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln, The Templar Code and also several other segments on the history of Knights Templar.

When I saw the movie, it was not nearly as interesting as the THC series which I have on DVDs. The "thriller" (chases and killings) part was insipid, not thrilling and the rest of it was already debunked.

I did enjoy very much a movie National Treasure that had all the thrill of chases and adventure, and was conducive to getting someone interesting in our history - with a little Templar and Freemason stories thrown in, also not a bad starting point as subjects of interest.

BTW, Tom Hank's wife's name is Rita Wilson (no relation to Charlie Wilson or Joe Wilson of Valerie Plame-Wilson fame), she is also an actor and played in several of his movies.

Apparently there is a Da Vinci sequel that Ron Howard and Tom Hanks are working on now.

Interesting fact : Tom Hanks made over $70M, the most for single film of his career, for Forrest Gump which was adapted from the Winston Groom novel. In the original contract, Groom waived his upfront fee in exchange for a percentage of the film's profits. However, when Groom requested his share of the $677M worldwide take, Paramount refused, claiming that the film never actually made any money. Paramount then asked Groom for the movie rights to his sequel, Gump and Co., so they could film it as well. Groom refused. Rumors were that Hanks also refused to participate in Forrest Gump sequel, but for a different reason.

[gusopol3]

Wow! You really are paranoid.

then she'll just have to console herself with the fact that the movie bombed. Which anyone would have predicted, even somebody throwing all that money after megastars. Which beggars the question, why did they do it?

[flattorney]

Which anyone would have predicted, even somebody throwing all that money after megastars. Which beggars the question, why did they do it?

Here is the answer and the movie will be profitable based on it's true actual production costs not the grossly inflated and bogus one reported. It has already earned an estimated $14,750,000 as of December 25, which is half it's actual production costs.

TAB

[flattorney]

Drug charges against Sorkin upgraded to felonies

...a felony count for possession of "illicit mushrooms," a felony count for possession of cocaine base and a misdemeanor count of possession of marijuana.

Looks like Sorkin is once again doing hallucinogenic mushrooms.

FYI, the felony drug charges in this case were dismissed against Aaron Sorkin after he completed 18 months of counseling and periodic drug tests. Accordingly, he has a clean criminal record. Sorkin pleaded guilty to the charges two months after being arrested in exchange for entry into a deferred-judgment program that allowed him to seek treatment and potentially have the charges dropped. Had Sorkin failed to complete the program, he could have faced a sentence of more than three years in prison and fines of $10,000.

Posted for FlAttorney by TAB

[JasonC]

I will watch nothing he makes in the future. I do not forgive this sort of commie propaganda.

[Sherman Logan]

“As part of a Cold War strategy, in 1979 the United States government (under President Jimmy Carter and National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski) began to covertly fund and train anti-government Mujahideen forces through the Pakistani secret service known as Inter Services Intelligence (ISI). In order to bolster the local Communist forces, the Soviet Union—citing the 1978 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness that had been signed between the two countries—intervened on December 24, 1979.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan

Have fun. I suspect they’ve got cause and effect confused, at least to some effect.

[Sherman Logan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

This article quotes Brezhinsky and Carter as saying American covert assistance started in July, 1979 (six months before the invasion) and was intended to drag the Soviets into an invasion, if possible.

[Bryan24]

I think you and a few others are missing the point and are falling for the Hollywood story-line.

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Jimmy Carter took action by boycotting the 1980 Olympics. Woooo, that was scary.

When Ronald Reagan won the presidency, he actually started helping the little countries fight against the Soviet invasion.

Stinger Missles would not have gone to the Mujhadeen, except for the approval of Ronald Reagan.

I have not watched the movie nor the History Channell special. From what I have seen of the previews, Charlie Wilson was a womanizer and a boozing Congressman who pushed the cause for arming the Mujhadeen AT THE BEHEST of a socialite named Joanne Herring(sp?).

Somehow, I fail to see how this makes the Dems look good. Wilson was a useful idiot. He was used to further the cause of fighting tyranny. For the most part, Democrats were lock-step OPPOSSED to helping the Mujhadeen.

Wilson comes off as a guy who would sell out his principles for a romp in the hay.

Don’t forget, that as/when the Soviets collapsed, the DEMOCRATS were crying loudly for a peace dividend and were the ones pushing for reduced military spending.

Charlie Wilson didn’t win the Cold War, Ronald Reagan did.

Charlie Wilson didn’t drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan, the Muhjadeen did with the very limited help of the United States.

Charlie Wilson didn’t send the Stingers to Afghanistan, the Reagan Administration did.

Democrats only win when they revise history.

[TigersEye]

I think you and a few others are missing the point and are falling for the Hollywood story-line.

I don't think so. I haven't seen the movie and I said so. I am also very capable of seeing beyond and through whatever spin is put on things.

Stinger Missles would not have gone to the Mujhadeen, except for the approval of Ronald Reagan.

Which was quite a while down the road after CW began intensely working on arming the Mujahadeen. His efforts paving the way for Ronald Reagan to put some of his political capital on the line.

Charlie Wilson was a womanizer and a boozing Congressman who pushed the cause for arming the Mujhadeen AT THE BEHEST of a socialite named Joanne Herring(sp?).

They made no bones about his partying in the HC special. Not CW or anyone else they interviewed. Joanne Herring, by her own testimony, said she got CW interested in helping them. They worked hand-in-hand to manipulate funding for the project and JH, a Texas socialite, had no other power at her disposal but to convince someone in Congress to take an interest.

Somehow, I fail to see how this makes the Dems look good. Wilson was a useful idiot. He was used to further the cause of fighting tyranny. For the most part, Democrats were lock-step OPPOSSED to helping the Mujhadeen.

I don't know how it makes the Dems look good either apart from CW and Doc Long. Wilson didn't have to have his arm twisted very hard. Once he saw who the Mujahadeen were and what they were up against he threw himself into helping them with all he had. By your definition Oliver North was a useful idiot for his part in Iran/Contra. ie he was presented with a challenge and an opportunity to fight the cold war in a very significant way and he rose to the challenge. We need more useful idiots like that.

Wilson comes off as a guy who would sell out his principles for a romp in the hay.

I don't know what his principles were. I didn't see any presented in the HC special. He seemed to have two burning desires other than women and booze (which he readily admitted to) and those were helping the Afghans and defeating the Soviets. He, Joanne Herring and the other woman all said their social abilities were their biggest tool and asset in moving the project forward both here and abroad. Apparently CW wasn't the only one interested in women and booze.

Charlie Wilson didn’t win the Cold War, Ronald Reagan did.

Not a single person in the HC special said otherwise. The book, the movie and the special were about Charlie Wilson not the Cold War, not Ronald Reagan and not anyone else at all.

Charlie Wilson didn’t drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan, the Muhjadeen did with the very limited help of the United States.

No one has said CW drove the Soviets out. The Mujahadeen were losing badly until they got Stinger missiles and knocked out over 100 Soviet aircraft in the first few weeks of getting them. Before that they were resigned to defeat and willing to die to the last man and that was where it was headed. Something I've accepted as true since 1989 so having never heard of CW until now I didn't get that perception from this.

Charlie Wilson didn’t send the Stingers to Afghanistan, the Reagan Administration did.

After CW had spent years promoting the arming of the Afghans and his little cell in the CIA had been pushing for Stingers for some time. Without CW's influence there would have been no one putting the plan on RRs desk. The rest of the CIA was against it. Doc Long, the one who supplied the funding for the covert operation that CW was promoting, did have to have his arm twisted pretty hard. If CW and his compatriots hadn't pushed Doc Long there would have been exactly zero people in the CIA working on arming the Mujahadeen with anything whatsoever.

[webheart]

Have never understood Roberts’ popularity... the last time I saw a mouth like that, it had a hook in it !

"Are you really a BIG Hollywood producer?"