Posted on 12/25/2007 12:58:28 AM PST by 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?
.....
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
You must like teeth and feet.
Hanks has picked some real turkeys of late.
He should talk to his wife (she was instramental with my big fat greek wedding)
Didn’t this drivel come from the west wing creator?
Thanks for posting.
no man, it was the real deal. no kidding.
Caption for the Julia shopping pic:
“Now, if I can just find the coupon for 25 cents off my Excedrin, we’ll have enough to buy that nice trailer AND my first pair of shoes!”
Makes you realize that the true power of Hollywood lies with the makeup artists.
BTTT
while getting rid of the Commies in Central America under the table was BAD, it apparently was okay for a Rat to be the deal maker in the Middle East....
I blame Charlie Wilson for the rise of the Islamists and for the Trade Center bombings...I blame him for the onslaught of Islamic Fascists the world over....
Charlie Wilson is a typical Rat....typical...creating chaos and claiming victory ...
Ronald Reagan broke the back of the Communist in Russia...he brought down the Berlin Wall...
I went to see this movie tonight with my wife...who wanted to see it. I had expressed my desire NOT to see it, suspecting full well what it was all about after hearing Tom Hanks in an interview exclaiming “Charlie Wilson won the Cold War singlehandedly, it’s all true...”
In the interest in seeing a movie that she wanted to see, I went.
In the first ten minutes, my suspicions were confirmed, and in the last ten minutes, I felt like I wanted to walk out after viewing the portrayal of the evil, shallow, one-dimensional Republicans and the dunce Reagan. If only we had given a million dollars to a school, 9/11 would have never happened. It made me want to puke.
I hated it. They prefaced the movie with “BASED on a true story...” although I am sure that was lost on many who saw it.
There was some irony there, lost on many of the viewers who think the movie is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Several scenes of planes and helicopters being shot down were actually US hardware...I saw a Phantom, a Huey, a F16 and what appeared to be an A6 Intruder, though I couldn’t be sure. While it is true the majority of the people who will root for it to win an Oscar won’t be able to tell the difference, I thought it was ironic.
Tom Hanks character was likeable, the Philip Seymour Hoffman character was well played, the Julia Roberts annoyingly portrayed character was a stereotypical Southern Christian, and there were a few good one liners.
This is going to be the version of history that the libs will push.
I did not read this post until tonight, but I just came back from the movie theater literally 10 minutes ago. I loved the movie. It was very funny and worth while seeing it. I do not know why people are complaining about them not using Reagan. Most of the movie was in 1980 and Reagan was not even President yet. Anyway if you want to see a funny and interesting movie this is the movie to see.
This is going to be the version of history that the libs will push.
Exactly. They (late George Crile, Sorkin, Soros, Hanks et al) have been promoting the story and the movie as The Truth but used just enough and omitted just enough of the "true story" to assign most of credit where it does not belong and to deny or diminish it to those who deserved it - and then slight their actual achievement by a screwball comment - and thus rewrite "change the history of our times". If not for involvement of Joanne Herring and threat of lawsuit and final week's editing sessions, it would be even far less of a masquerade. It was disappointing that THC presentation was more of an infomercial by Sorkin and Charlie Wilson than an honest critique of the events described in the movie.
Not unlike Oliver Stone's JFK and Nixon and some other recent Hollywood's "based on true story" "historic" movies (Vietnam and Iraq-themed and others), as well as the "progressive" organizations like Soros-financed Americans United for Change that are now in business of spending over $8 million just to attack the "legacy" of George W. Bush presidency (as if al-media and we ourselves don't do a good enough job already).
I understand that they stretched the truth. I was just saying it was a very funny movie.
I have no doubt, $75 million production budget (not including promotion) can buy a lot of Hollywood “production value”, especially with stars like Hanks and Hoffman, even after subtracting some from experience for Julia Roberts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.