[Darkwolf377]

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.

With Hanks and Roberts, what else could one have expected?

[Lancey Howard]

With Hanks and Roberts, what else could one have expected?

And the drug-addled Sorkin. Pure Hollywood "docu-fantasy".

[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.

[reg45]

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