Posted on 02/23/2013 9:08:14 AM PST by Borges
******
Citing one key discrepancy in the film, the former United States president made this point:
"...90 percent of the contributions to the ideas and the consummation of the plan was Canadian," notes the 88-year-old. "The movie gives almost full credit to the American CIA. And with that exception, the movie's very good."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com ...
It’s a drama not a documentary. Drama based on actual events is never historically accurate in all regards. Ever. Not in Shakespeare’s day and certainly not now.
So.... 3% is then actually a very high figure, considering it’s a drama .
Actually there was a movie about that rescue that came out a few years ago. I know, because I saw it in the theater with my late father who was a big WWII history buff. He said he knew someone who was on that mission.
Actually there was a movie about that rescue that came out a few years ago. I know, because I saw it in the theater with my late father who was a big WWII history buff. He said he knew someone who was on that mission.
This article is about the way I remember it being reported at that time. Upstate NY businesses even had Canadian Appreciation Day discounts for a few weeks to say thank you for their part for keeping those Americans safe and bringing them back. I read that the group was really bored in hiding. They played so much Scrabble that they were able to tell what letter was on the other side of a tile by the grain of the wood on the back.
Can’t imagine why. Carter hates Jews and real Christians almost as much as Mohammadans do.
did you see the movie?
Anyone who goes to the movies to learn history or truth from the media is .... well ..... y’know.
it can... Shakespeare in Love won the Best Picture award while Steven Spielberg won Best Director for Saving Private Ryan the same year...
however, the director of Shakespeare in Love was at least nominated for best director... Ben Affleck was not even nominated... tres snubbery by the Academy...
You sure are correct that no one has heard about that paratrooper raid which is considered one of the most successful in history, rescuing over 2100 prisoners.
People here are confusing it with the Ranger raid at Cabanatuan.
Although the US Army did most of the fighting in the Pacific, losing almost exactly the same number of dead as the Navy and Marines combined suffered in all of WWII, for some reason the media has succumbed to the Marine publicity machine, and made the Pacific, a Marine Corp operation.
I know a man who has written on that injustice.
yes, and I plan to buy it, too :)
but it is horrible history
the opening narration by the Iranian woman, it was a bunch of lies and distortions
can you give me maybe 3 bullet items of where it was horrible? i know movie makers tend to take liberties, but where was it blatantly horrible history? just a couple of examples... thank you...
blaming the Shah for war crimes, the Shah was defending his country against Soviet sponsored kill squads, Khomenie killed over 1 million people before he died, the Shah, according to Khomenie’s grandson, killed 3,500
Blaming the US, the US was about to impose sanctions against the Shah for not modernizing and sharing the wealth in the early 70’s until the oil embargo and Iran bargained to get arms for oil, we didn’t play the games that the ron paul types and leftists all claim
When I saw that Affleck and Clooney were involved I knew the movie would have an agenda. Sure enough, I realized it was all about rehabilitating Carter's reputation which was destroyed when Reagan got the hostages released.
As far as the quality, it was an OK movie but certainly not academy award material. Affleck's acting was bland. The academy award hoopla IMO is to get more people to rent it so that history can be revised.
My understanding was that they were released on Reagan’s first day in office because the Muslims wanted to stick it to Carter for harboring the Shah.
But "Argo" concerns some other little-known hostages kept in the Canadian embassy and ignores Reagan, giving the credit pretty much to Carter and one CIA agent.
Those things have come out now but back then, Carter’s reputation as a devout Christian and he was the one who the Iranians blamed for supporting the Shah.
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.