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?

.....

[sinanju]

“Julia Roberts reprises her role as the beautiful...”

_______________________________________________________________

“Froggy went a courting, he did ride...”

[CutePuppy]

I KNEW there was something fishy about all these libs claiming this was somehow a "pro-war" movie over at AICN, and saying it showed how the US defeated the Soviets.

Right, it's not about US defeating the Soviets, it's about Charlie Wilson ("liberal, womanizing, boozing, snorting, southern" D-TX) winning his "war".

By only concentrating on Charlie Wilson as the main hero, (who, in fact, was really a foil/tool for covert efforts to help Afghanistan resistance operation, while Joanne Herring deserves more of a credit), by shifting him to be the focus of entire operation, they made it into a "Charlie Wilson's War", which is how it's going to be known from now on - what we see is clever liberal "history in the making". He is being made, for all practical purposes, into James Bond of Afghanistan-Soviets war.

This reminds me of a classic line from Absence of Malice (1981) : "No, it is not true... but it is accurate"

That's what's been cleverly done here - you can't accuse them of being inaccurate (and even that came after pressure applied by real life principals, mainly Joanne Herring, and their legal team), yet it just is not quite true, though billed as such.

[jveritas]

I watched the documentary about this subject last week on the History Channel. Charlie Wilson made it very clear in the History Channel interview with him that it was President Reagan who made the great decision of arming the Afghani with Stinger missiles that destroyed the Soviets control of the air and hence made them lose the war. Wilson said that it was President Reagan who went against the advice of the CIA, State Department and others and authorized the Stinger missiles for the Afghanis. Wilson himself acknowledged that he played an important role in the Afghan campaign against the soviets but he was realistic and honest enough to give most of the credit to President Reagan and some other CIA fellow that was the head of the Afghanistan operation.

Hollywood has zero impact on changing history no matter how the idiotic leftists in Hollywood delude themselves that they can.

[CutePuppy]

Sorry, posted too fast. Add :

We are still waiting for Clinton movies and his "achievements" in foreign, and domestic, policies.

Of course, the first movie about Reagan[s] that they made, was the infamous CBS flop - another Hollywood's "remake" of history.

[duckbutt]

This leads me to ask all Freepers —is there a GOOD, definitive bio of Ronald Reagan —one that talks about this issue as well as his dealings with the Soviets, congress, etc?

I need some GOOD reading material to wash my eyes out with this Charlie Wilson movie re-write of history...

Thanks!

[Thud]

"The movie is bombing at the box office so that’s good news."

The Pajamas Media review of it was "Ishtar meets the Congressional Record."

[dfwgator]

I recommend Dinesh D’Souza’s “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader.”

[exit82]

My pet name for JR is “Clownmouth”.

I don;t find her at all attractive, especially as she has gotten older. It is obvious how much makeup, lighting, camera angles, etc., have everything to do with making her seem attractive.

To me,as an actress, she is unwatchable.

[CutePuppy]

I watched THC production, unfortunately told by Charlie Wilson and Aaron Sorkin instead of THC's usual "what really happened" and Hollywood vs Reality programs, and sounded more like a commercial for the movie. Reagan's decision on Stingers was but one line, more of a footnote in the program, and the totality of administration involvement as described in this articles not even touched on. In THS program they even went further and showed 9/11 attack, as if tying it to Afghanistan operation, before backing off and blaming it on "crazies". They were forced to redact that from the movie, but actually introduced it in THC program, and it might make it into "director's cut" of the movie (on cable, and definitely, on DVD)

Even at that, how many people watch THC, and how many that watched know the real history, instead of just focusing on the hero of the movie, told by the hero and the script writer? That was the real purpose of the movie and it's all-star cast, and the naming of it "Charlie Wilson's War" - to shift the focus and take the credit for the success and thus try and alter the entire truth about our role in covert Afghanistan resistance.

Hollywood has zero impact on changing history no matter how the idiotic leftists in Hollywood delude themselves that they can.

Not changing real history, but polluting the history - Hollywood has a lot of impact on perception and thus people's knowledge and understanding of history. Oliver Stone's JFK and Nixon are what people think the real history is, I've experienced it firsthand in conversations with people who should know better. Liberals (and Hollywood) figured out that they don't have to or can't (in the age Internet) outright lie, that while being accurate, they don't have to be really truthful. The conclusions they can make from the set of facts or, more often, from the subset of facts are not necessarily what actually follows from the facts - that's the real Inconvenient Truth. They are making it subtler and subtler, Aaron Sorkin's own West Wing's President Josiah "Jed" Bartlett was an attempt to influence Bill Clinton in his waning days of Presidency, and set up alternate reality and "what the President should really do" scenarios to influence many during Bush Presidency.

Merry Christmas, my FRiend.

[jveritas]

Merry Christmas.

[savedbygrace]

Roberts’ three best friends are makeup, lighting, and camera angles. Without all three, she is, well, what you see in those pix.

[Luke21]

Hey, you and I will finally agree on one at last. Merry Christmas to you.

[Thud]

IMO Sporkin's failure here was due to too many compromises in paring the book down to a movie script. I agree the script had to leave the Reagan administration out of it, but they should also have turned the CIA guy, Gust, played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, into a faceless bureaucrat. Hoffman is too good an actor and Gust was too colorful a character not to be a distraction.

The script should have focused entirely on Charlie Wilson and pretended that he was the only man who made things happen. At least then the movie's pacing would have been faster, the plot more understandable, and Hanks would not have had to compete with Hoffman for the audience's attention. Sure the movie would then have been purely fictitious, but it would have been more entertaining.

[Thud]

See my No. 73. I feel Sporkin should have cut out far more of the book and made the movie into complete fiction.

[jveritas]

Merry Christmas :)

[CutePuppy]

You are exactly right. That’s the reason Charlie was “recruited” for that role by Joanne Herring - he was from the “proper” side of the isle, because funding was needed for black ops in Afghanistan and Republican would not be able to do that in then overwhelmingly Democrat-dominated Congress. There had to be a black op first to get the funding, though, because CIA had to (”officially”) have no involvement in Afghanistan, and White House had to be at arm’s length with it and have “plausible deniability”, as well.

Had Ollie North been a “Charlie Wilson’s Democrat”, we would not have had Iran-Contra-”gate”, and hearings amd Lawrence Walsh etc. Instead, we would see “Ollie North’s War” in the theaters near you about a “lovable rogue Democrat” making Nicaragua democratic and free from despotic Sandinistas’ rule...

See :
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1943083/posts?page=177#177

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1943083/posts?page=152#152

And great thanks for that picture of a “blue” Weimaraner, it set this puppy’s heart a-flutter and just made my day!

[CutePuppy]

Yes, it is a great post by flattorney:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1943083/posts?page=152#152

[RightWingConspirator]

What a skank!

[PzLdr]

They used a body double [in certain scenes] for Julia in the movie “Pretty Woman”.

[CutePuppy]

Well, this is not really an anti-American movie, as much as it is an attempt to flip the credit and debit columns (”corporate-y” speaking) in our efforts in Afghanistan, and assign most of credit to one Democrat that had a role in it, and which also was an [aborted] attempt to sully “our” (read USA, Reagan’s, Bush’s, not congressional Democrats as a whole as a matter of policy] “abandoning” of Afghanistan, while at the same time trying to imply that Osama bin Laden directly benefited from us supplying arms to native Afghani mujahideen that later became known as Northern Alliance.