Skip to comments.Charlie Wilson's War is "a drive-by shooting of Reagan policy and the truth itself"
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.
The movie bombed. Let it die.
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.
that movie will be shown in acedamia as fact.
I remember seeing the trailer in a theater well over a year ago, and it took forever to be released. That says it all.
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.
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.
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.
F that puking liberal slime ball.
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.
exactly. why raise any curiosity about an otherwise flop of a film.
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.
Note: There WAS a Charlie Wilson.
He didn’t like/was willing to fight—the Commies!
Ergo: The lefties aren’t supporting the flick.
"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
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.
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.