Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Charlie Wilson's War is "a drive-by shooting of Reagan policy and the truth itself"
Modern Conservative ^

Posted on 01/14/2008 6:30:14 AM PST by connell

Stalin (and his ilk) were constantly scrubbing history to fit their agenda. It is said, in fact, that in the USSR, the future was known...it was the past that was always changing.

Today's American left are driven by the same impulse, and will use whatever means at their disposal to do the same thing. Fortunately, American liberty prevents them from getting away with as much as Stalin could...though if they had the power afforded them by the totalitarian system to which their core ideology is always slouching, they surely would.

Using the three pillars of information dissemination—academia, entertainment, and the press, over which they enjoy near-hegemonic control—they do their level best, within the aforementioned constraints put upon them by American liberty. The latest example, according to this article by Paul Kengor, is the film Charlie Wilson's War.

After reading the article, some may say, "so they scrub history of Reagan and his team's role in supporting the mujahedeen...what's the big deal? They wanted to make a movie with their guys as the heros."

But that's how the left gets ya, folks. A little bit here, a little bit there, and before you know it, an entire generation's perception of reality has been slightly altered...altered, it just so happens, in ways that suit the left's overall agenda.


TOPICS: Editorial; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: charliewilson; coldwar; communismkills; history; hollywood; left; moviereview; reaganlegacy; revisionism; revisionisthistory; stalinisttacts

1 posted on 01/14/2008 6:30:16 AM PST by connell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: connell

The movie bombed. Let it die.


2 posted on 01/14/2008 6:33:06 AM PST by joebuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: connell

Unlike most of these types of recent movies, Charlie Wilson’s War is not an absolute bomb. However, it will be lucky if its final box office take makes it to $75 million, which it cost to make. Basically only the liberals are seeing this movie, and they are already brain washed.


3 posted on 01/14/2008 6:34:36 AM PST by ExtremeUnction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: connell

BTTT


4 posted on 01/14/2008 6:34:47 AM PST by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joebuck

that movie will be shown in acedamia as fact.


5 posted on 01/14/2008 6:37:03 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: connell

I remember seeing the trailer in a theater well over a year ago, and it took forever to be released. That says it all.


6 posted on 01/14/2008 6:37:08 AM PST by Melinda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExtremeUnction; joebuck

Just like “Redacted” and other Leftist flicks, they can & may do well in the DVD market.

Exactly why I informed Mark Cuban that his film would be used by the Muzzies for anti-American propaganda.


7 posted on 01/14/2008 6:37:55 AM PST by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: connell
The Reagan administration being absent from the movie is absurd, although they do say Wilson accomplished all this “With a democrat Congress and a republican president” but that’s it.

The book also acknowledges only one conservative senator, and of course says he was a kook who did more harm than good. Preposterous.

We know this wouldn’t have happened under a democrat president, because it didn’t. The Soviets invaded under Carter, and his response was ineffectual. The CIA was run by Reagan via Casey during the successes. At least to its credit, the book acknowledges that Carter and the democrats had eviscerated the CIA.

8 posted on 01/14/2008 6:38:32 AM PST by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: connell
After reading the article, some may say, “so they scrub history of Reagan and his team’s role in supporting the mujahedeen...what’s the big deal? They wanted to make a movie with their guys as the heros.”

Well, of course.

Nuclear deterrence worked. Missile Defense will work. A more aggressive posture with Iran and Libya worked. Pushing back on the Red threat worked. But those who opposed everything from stationing Pershing missiles in Germany to bad mouthing Reagan's support of anticommunist elements in Afghanistan or Central South America (Even trying to politically bring him down because of it!), today would like to take credit for it; after all, it’s kind of hard to deny that it worked at this point.

LOL - You watch, in 20 years the liberal will want to take credit for success in Iraq.

9 posted on 01/14/2008 6:42:14 AM PST by Red6 (Come and take it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Mark Cuban

F that puking liberal slime ball.

10 posted on 01/14/2008 6:44:08 AM PST by RetiredArmy (Better prepare, come Nov 08, we have a Marxist Commissar President and Marxist Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: connell
It's a Tom Hanks' movie, so it's Neocom(munist) propaganda, it goes without saying.
11 posted on 01/14/2008 6:47:58 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum ("It takes very little to govern good people. Very little. And bad people can't be governed at all.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: connell

I said this was the case when the movie was still being advertised. I said to my Uncle” watch they are going try and get Reagan out of the whole story”, and low and behold woola! That is just what they have done.. Hollywood was once very patriotic, now it is just seditious and treasonous.


12 posted on 01/14/2008 7:03:24 AM PST by crazydad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joebuck

exactly. why raise any curiosity about an otherwise flop of a film.


13 posted on 01/14/2008 7:19:59 AM PST by Ron in Acreage (Thinking of new tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
I read Cuban the “riot act” in an e-mail regarding "Redacted."
He reacted that he thought the film was pro-military.
I informed him that making a film surrounded around one rape would be used by the muzzies for propaganda...
the light-bulb in Cuban’s head “may” have started to turn on.
In fairness, to Cuban, he has been a “pro-military” guy in the past.
14 posted on 01/14/2008 7:24:33 AM PST by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: connell

look, this movie will
1) get democrats off this anti-war nonsense.

2) get democrats to stop saying we supported Osama in afghanistan by funding the mooj.


15 posted on 01/14/2008 7:25:29 AM PST by ari-freedom (I want Fred to win but I really want Fred to want Fred to win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: connell
I saw the film, I liked it as a good piece of writing and some nice performances. I divorced it from the reality and it was ok. Hanks puts in a nice performance and Juila Roberts didn't turn my stomach too much.

As with anything that comes out of Hwood, I take it with a grain of salt and just try to be entertained.
16 posted on 01/14/2008 7:28:11 AM PST by The Louiswu (Never Forget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Note: There WAS a Charlie Wilson.
BUT.............
He didn’t like/was willing to fight—the Commies!
Ergo: The lefties aren’t supporting the flick.


17 posted on 01/14/2008 7:32:36 AM PST by Flintlock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Williams; connell
"The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention."
source
18 posted on 01/14/2008 7:36:25 AM PST by F-117A (Mr. Bush, have someone read UN Resolution 1244 to you!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: The Louiswu

I thought it was pretty good as well. And as usual Phillip Seymour Hoffman was the best thing about. Which for me is pretty much the case in any movie he is in.


19 posted on 01/14/2008 7:36:36 AM PST by Mr. Blonde (You ever thought about being weird for a living?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
His HDNet channel prominently features good ole Dan Blather. He is on there every day, many times a day, with “Dan Blather Reports.” That alone, keeps me from tuning in that channel.
20 posted on 01/14/2008 7:37:14 AM PST by RetiredArmy (Better prepare, come Nov 08, we have a Marxist Commissar President and Marxist Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Flintlock
Note: There WAS a Charlie Wilson.

And folks that knew Charlie Wilson say that Tom Hanks nailed the part. The writing, however, plays with the facts a lot.

21 posted on 01/14/2008 7:43:29 AM PST by Tanniker Smith (I didn't know she was a Liberal when I married her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
Mark Cuban F that puking liberal slime ball.

And his choking basketball team. (The original Dallas chokers.)

22 posted on 01/14/2008 7:45:23 AM PST by dfwgator (11+7+15=3 Heismans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

I have not watched the NBA since Larry Bird retired. It is the National Punk League to me. I do not care to watch a bunch of slime ball punks run up and down the court to dunk the ball and run their mouths each time they dunk the ball, slapping themselves on the chest, saying look at me, me, me. The NBA is nothing but a punk league of punks. I don’t care about it, don’t watch it, and if it went bankrupt, I would be first in line to laugh and clap my hands. It sucks.


23 posted on 01/14/2008 7:48:43 AM PST by RetiredArmy (Better prepare, come Nov 08, we have a Marxist Commissar President and Marxist Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: connell

bump


24 posted on 01/14/2008 7:55:53 AM PST by lowbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
I have not watched the NBA since Larry Bird retired. It is the National Punk League to me. I do not care to watch a bunch of slime ball punks run up and down the court to dunk the ball and run their mouths each time they dunk the ball, slapping themselves on the chest, saying look at me, me, me. The NBA is nothing but a punk league of punks. I don’t care about it, don’t watch it, and if it went bankrupt, I would be first in line to laugh and clap my hands. It sucks.

Come on now, tell us how you really feel. Don't hold back. :)

Excellent Rant BTW.

25 posted on 01/14/2008 11:36:24 AM PST by rllngrk33 (The RATs and Media are the enemy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
It's a Tom Hanks' movie, so it's Neocom(munist) propaganda, it goes without saying.

huh? He's been a pretty forthright supporter of Americana (Private Ryan, docuemtnaries about the American Space Program, Forrest Gump).
26 posted on 01/18/2008 3:40:13 PM PST by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Borges
huh? He's been a pretty forthright supporter of Americana (Private Ryan, docuemtnaries about the American Space Program, Forrest Gump).

You're one of those people who think that movies are reality, aren't you?

Tom is a Liberal of the same stripe as Sean Penn, he's just a little more discrete about it.

Tom Hanks's Federal Campaign Contribution Report

27 posted on 01/18/2008 4:53:57 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum ("It takes very little to govern good people. Very little. And bad people can't be governed at all.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
You're one of those people who think that movies are reality, aren't you?

You're one of those people who politicize everything aren't you?

Tom is a Liberal of the same stripe as Sean Penn, he's just a little more discrete about it.

I'm not talking about his politics I'm talking about hiw work...which you claimed is uniformly communist propaganda. Hanks' cinematic body of work of generally benign.
28 posted on 01/19/2008 8:05:32 AM PST by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Borges
You're one of those people who politicize everything aren't you?

Well, this is a political website.

If that bothers you, maybe you should go back to your teenage friends on FaceBook.

Hanks' cinematic body of work of generally benign.

Yeah, like the Catholophobic "Da Vinci Code."

29 posted on 01/19/2008 10:34:52 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum ("It takes very little to govern good people. Very little. And bad people can't be governed at all.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Well, this is a political website. If that bothers you, maybe you should go back to your teenage friends on FaceBook.

So therefore everything is political. Your logic is worse than your attempt at a personal attacks.

Yeah, like the Catholophobic "Da Vinci Code."

One of the best selling novels of all time would have been made into a film with or without Hanks. Is everyone involved with the publicication a communist? Is everyone who bought it?
30 posted on 01/19/2008 12:46:39 PM PST by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson