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?
The movie is based on the book by former "60 Minutes" staffer George Crile [Deceased 5/15/06-MAR]. Crile's credits include the infamous 1982 CBS documentary alleging that Gen. William Westmoreland led a conspiracy to mislead America about the Vietnam War. The screenplay was written by Aaron Sorkin of "West Wing" fame. Wilson's chief ally in the film is CIA agent Gust Avrakotos who, like Wilson, is portrayed as a enthusiastic supporter of providing the Stingers. But Ikle says, the CIA bureaucracy initially fought against the idea and that Wilson was lukewarm on the matter. Ikle says both came around only after the rebels actually started bringing down the Soviet helicopter gunships. The movie also perpetuates the left-wing myth that the covert operation funded Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida and ultimately led to the 9/11 attacks. Reagan-era officials such as Ikle say Osama never got funding or weapons from the U.S. and that he didn't launch his terror war until after U.S. involvement and the Soviet withdrawal in 1989.
It was Ronald Reagan, not Charlie Wilson, who gave the order to provide the mujahadeen with the Stinger missiles that denied the Soviet air supremacy and turned the tide of battle after 1986. Yet in the movie, the likes of Dan Rather and Diane Sawyer (director Mike Nichol's wife) are more prominently mentioned. To be fair, the movie doesn't mention Jimmy Carter either. It was his naivete about Communist expansion that led the Soviets to invade Afghanistan in the first place. Had Reagan not beaten Carter in 1980 there would have been no Stingers and no victory in the Cold War. But don't expect a movie about Reagan's victory over communism or Carter's surrender to it.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=1&view=1&issue=20071224
Posted for FlAttorney by MAR
. . . . The question is how seriously should we take "Charlie Wilson's War." As political history, it's negligent: Charlie and Co. are such (covert) credit hogs that you'd never know that Reagan, or Gorbachev for that matter, had anything to do with the fall of Communism. It's also a bit troubling that all this Capitol Hill covertness is celebrated without the slightest irony. And when irony finally rears its ugly head and we are informed that the freedom fighters of then are the terrorists of today, it's too little, too late.
The filmmakers, just like everybody else he ever met, have been seduced by good time Charlie, and the seduction proves the film's undoing. His saga only retains its full-throated, black-comic force if viewed from the perspective of today's headlines. The way it's been done here, it's a success story without a punch line. Grade: B
Posted for FlAttorney by MAR
. . . And perhaps most disappointing is the film’s failure to give credit to the man who did the most to win the cold war, Ronald Reagan. This omission was clearly intentional (Tom Hanks, after all, is involved), and is corrected by Charlie Wilson himself, in the History Channel's historical perspective of the film. Nobody would have expected the movie to be about Reagan, but making a movie about winning the cold war that doesn’t reference Reagan is a bit like making a movie about the Revolutionary War that doesn’t reference George Washington.
Still, the film is well worth seeing, and viewers will be better for having seen it. While many heroes were involved in winning the cold war, the Afghanistan war is often viewed as the coup de grace for the Soviets. [snip]
<> <> <>
NewsMax Review: ‘Charlie Wilson's War’ Credits Democrat With Cold War End
. . . History indicates that a prominent conservative’s steadfast actions are what led to the Cold War end. It was the late great Ronald Reagan who was the key player in the engineering of U.S. victory following the prolonged tension-ridden period during which we were at odds with the then-Soviet Union. A current film once again illustrates that acknowledging Reagan’s triumphs doesn’t sit all that well with liberal Hollywood. [snip]
Posted for FlAttorney by MAR