From what I know, Wilson, a Democrat coke snorter, was slick willie’s role model.
Another marvelous thread you all! Glad I could contribute. I was surprised when the man himself actually returned my email. After Christmas I will finish reading everything here and see the movies. My husband already Tivo’d the docu for us to watch.
He was my Congressman. What a low-life, womanizing, liberal, scumbag he was.
Thus, Adam Sorkin's tricky propoganda ploy in this movie. Better try to find some Dem heroes quick to revise history.
Charlie Wilson...good for him. He fought a Dem congress for appropriations to fight the Cold War.
But Wilson is a sad minority in the Dem party who fought tooth and nail AGAINST fighting the Cold War....sorry Sorkin...it's true. (And unfortunately Wilson was poor on all other fronts.)
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
Posted for FlAttorney by MAR
Bookmarking!
I saw this film (not voluntarily mind you), It was not that
great. It took some potshot attack on right wingers but one thing REALLY bothered me....
MINOR SPOILERS when they showed a sequence when “Russian” choppers and planes get shot down. They were not Russian planes at all.
However they showed and I am not kidding an F-4 Phantom
an A-6 Intruder and an F-16C Fighting falcon (1 of the most reconizable planes in history mind you) getting blown up I even saw a Huey
(you know our chopper of the Vietnam War). Cant they tell our planes from the Soviets without Dale Dye’s or DOD’s help??!!
THat is my take however.
THERE ARE A LOT of words one could use to describe former congressman Charles Wilson--drunkard, sleazy, womanizer, patriot--but the one that most comes to mind in my dealings with him was simply "persistent." Wilson, whose role in supporting the Afghan mujahedin in their war against the Soviets in the 1980s has become the stuff of a best selling book - - Charlie Wilson's War by George Crile, a long-time CBS news producer - - [ Crile, who passed away May 15, 2006, was a controversial ultra liberal that loathed the GOP and conservatives. Many parts of his book are Crile’s own fictional fantasies that are without basis. That stated, it is still a very good read, just take it with a grain and reason to explore further if interested. - FlA ] and now a ticket-selling movie success of the same name, was a tall, lanky populist Democrat from East Texas. Wilson had first been elected to Congress in 1973 and, by the time the Afghan war had broken out, by hook and by crook, he had made his way well up the seniority ladder of the all-powerful House appropriations committee. It was there he could protect aid to Israel, keep money flowing to Somoza in Nicaragua, and--eventually--pour money into the "covert war" the CIA was quasi-supporting and quasi-directing in Afghanistan.
I say "quasi" because the Agency, especially in the early 80s, was letting the Pakistanis call many of the shots when it came to running the war and was as often as not applying the brake to folks who wanted to up the ante when it came to fighting the Soviets. CIA's analysts were insisting that the Soviets could not possibly lose the war, and the folks from the operational side at Langley were saying: "Let's bleed 'em, but let's not start World War III either." Before I had ever met Congressman Wilson, I had of course heard of him. I was from Texas, and Wilson was already a legend there for partying and his ability to bring home federal money to his East Texas constituents. He had helped pull Rep. John Murtha's bacon out of the fire during the ABSCAM investigation while a member of the House ethics committee and had been rewarded by the Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill, with even more of a free hand on the defense appropriations subcommittee.
As Crile and others tell the story, Wilson first got involved in the Afghan war through a girlfriend and Houston socialite Joanne Herring, who had been named an honorary consul for Pakistan. After a visit to Pakistan, the Afghan border, and a meeting with Mohammed Zia, Pakistan's dictator, Wilson returned to Washington and began to turn on the spigots for both Zia and the mujahedin.
Initially, with support from the outside increasing, the Afghan rebels were eating up the Soviet forces: thousands had been killed or wounded, hundreds of aircraft lost, and thousands of tanks and other vehicles destroyed. But, not willing to go down easily, Moscow ratcheted up the fight by deploying elite special forces (Spetsnatz) to Afghanistan and adding the Mi-24D (Hind) attack helicopter to the fight. The Hinds in particular were devastating, and the fight seemed to be turning in the Soviets favor.
Back in Washington, the issue for those of us who wanted to increase support for the rebels was what could be added to their arsenal to help defeat the Hinds. The older, out of storage, surface-to-air missiles that the CIA and others had been providing them were, at best, only marginal effective. Eventually, through the efforts of officials in Weinberger's Pentagon--especially Fred Ikle, the then undersecretary for policy--modern American surface-to-air missiles (Stingers) were sent, providing a devastating and ultimately critical counter to the Soviet military machine in Afghanistan. Before that decision was taken, however, Wilson had decided all on his own that the mujahedin needed the portable anti-aircraft weapon made by Oerlikon, the Swiss arms manufacturer. Capable of spitting out rounds at several hundred a minute, the weapon could throw a blanket of lead against low-flying attack helicopters and planes. Using his position on the subcommittee, Wilson put language in the annual defense appropriations bill that required the Pentagon to "reprogram"--that is, turn over--$40 million of its monies to the Agency to buy a couple of the weapons and the ammunition to go along.
But, before that money could be turned over, the budget rules required in this case that both the chairmen and ranking members of the two relevant Senate committees (armed services and intelligence) literally sign off on the reprogramming. And it is here that I first ran into Charlie Wilson, the persistent Charlie Wilson, in early spring of 1984. As the minority staff director of the Senate's intelligence committee at the time, Wilson needed my boss, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), to ok the deal. He also needed the approval of Sen. Sam Nunn, then the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, whom I also served as an advisor on issues that crossed over our two committees' jurisdictions. His first step was to call me and ask me to get their signatures for the reprogramming.
Thinking it mattered, and wanting to give my bosses the best advice I could, I then asked both the Pentagon and CIA what they thought about Wilson's effort to supply the Afghans with 22-mm Oerlikon cannons. Both were adamant that it was one of the dumbest ideas they had ever heard of. The Oerlikon was portable, but definitely not mobile. It would take teams of mules and horses to move the gun, and even larger teams to move the ammo to keep the gun supplied. Once in place, it wasn't going anywhere, and it would be a target as much as a weapon once actually used. And to top things off, each round for the weapon would cost somewhere on the order of $50, with the Oerlikon eating through each 60-round magazine in just a few seconds. Virtually everyone agreed that the Oerlikons would be a waste of money and resources. And if there was going to be a solution to the Hinds, this was not it. The Oerlikons were so obviously impractical that it didn't take long before Wilson's own sketchy history was combined with his push to buy the weapon into pretty loud whispers that there were kickbacks involved. Or, as the then deputy director of CIA John McMahon later more politely said: "We use to make comments like, it must be Charlie's uncle who owns Oerlikon."
I passed this all along to Sen. Moynihan, who instructed me to stall Wilson's efforts. So, for the next while, I "missed" Wilson's calls or "returned" them when I knew he had probably left for the day. But Wilson was persistent and, sure enough, he started making his way over to the Senate side to track me down in person. For a few days, I avoided him and even found myself asking my secretary to see whether the hallways were clear before heading out to lunch. When he finally got hold of me--literally--the 6'4" Wilson was adamant that I get Moynihan's ok for the reprogramming. Angered by Wilson's attempt to intimidate me, I told him that, if my boss were to listen to me, he wouldn't give the ok. After a few rhetorical rounds of "who was I?" and "who was the congressman here?" Wilson then went into his more soothing East Texas routine and said he would take this matter up with the senator directly. It was then Moynihan's turn to scan the hallways, which he quite ably did for a few days. But then Wilson struck. He waited until the senator was in an important finance committee hearing, came in through the back door directly behind the senator and the committee members' dais, and publicly accosted the senator from the back. Sitting in my office, I got a panicked call from one of the senator's other aides telling me that Moynihan had said for me to do whatever I had to do to get this "mad man" away from him, including having him ok the reprogramming.
My next step was to turn to Sen. Nunn, who had only recently taken over for Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson as the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee after Jackson's unexpected death in 1983. But Nunn, of course, was no stranger to Washington's ways and was quite capable of standing pretty firm if he thought it worthwhile. When I briefed Nunn on what was up, his response was simple but smart. He'd only approve the reprogramming if the Agency said it really wanted the Oerlikons. Perfect, I thought. I then called Langley asked them to send a team from the Afghan program down to meet with Sen. Nunn to brief him on the Agency's position. In a day or so, we all met in the senator's office. And sure enough, the CIA caved. Officers who had been constantly calling me over the past month to tell me what a ludicrous idea the Oerlikons were and that Afghan rebels were going to lose their lives carting and protecting these weapons, were now benignly telling Sen. Nunn that the Agency had "no objections" to the reprogramming. Sen. Nunn turned to me, shrugged his shoulders and gave me the old "welcome to Washington" look.
The assumption was that Wilson had gotten to Bill Casey, Reagan's director of central intelligence. And, no doubt, from Casey's point of view, wasting a few tens of millions on the Oerlikons was worth it if it kept this powerful democrat on the side of the angels, especially given all the problems the administration was having getting similar support for its programs in Central America at the time. Plus, in the end, it didn't matter much once the decision to ship Stingers to the Afghan rebels was made a year or so later. So the mujahedin got the Oerlikons. But, as predicted, once they had moved them to a spot, that is where they stayed; and also as predicted, they were of marginal use in the war against the Hinds, at best. But if buying them kept "Good Time" Charlie Wilson happy, that was good enough for Bill Casey--and Casey was probably right.
Gary Schmitt is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and former minority staff director of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/534ildhe.asp?pg=1
Posted for FlAttorney by MAR
Well, if the Hollywood elite would like to undermine Reagan’s role in bringing down the Soviet Union, at least they have to face the consequences associated with advocating the abandonment of Iraq.
Released: December 22, 2007
History Channel: http://www.history.com/shows.do?episodeId=254862&action=detail
HC Purchase DVD(s): http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=108800
HC Charlie Wilson related DVDs:
http://store.aetv.com/html/subject/index.jhtml?id=cat2870002&parentcatid=cat2870002
IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1129393/
Free Republic: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1943083/posts
Amazon.com: The True Story Of Charlie Wilson
Studio: A & E Home Video
DVD Release Date: March 25, 2008
Run Time: 94 minutes
http://www.amazon.com/True-Story-Charlie-Wilson/dp/B000ZDQI9E
Writer: Aaron Bowden - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1651862/
Production Company and Distributor: Wild Eyes Production
- Production Company – filmography
http://www.imdb.com/company/co0101064/
The True Story of Charlie Wilson (2007) (TV) ... Production Company
Stalking Jihad (2007) ... Production Company
Inside Al Qaeda (2007) (TV) ... Production Company
Inside the Taliban (2007) (TV) ... Production Company
The True Story of Che Guevara (2007) (TV) ... Production Company
Guests of the Ayatollah (2006) (TV) ... Production Company
Critical Threat: Life in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (2006) (TV) ... Production Company
Skeletons on the Zahara (2006) (TV) ... Production Company
"Heroes Under Fire" (2005) ... Production Company
The Mystery of the Afghan Gold (2005) (TV) ... Production Company
The Dark Art of Interrogation (2005) (TV) ... Production Company
True Warriors: Urgent Fury (2004) (TV) ... Production Company
Targeted: Baby Faced Psycho (2004) (TV) ... Production Company
Targeted: Pineapple Face (2004) (TV) ... Production Company
Targeted: Engineer of Death (2004) (TV) ... Production Company
Targeted: The Evil Genius (2004) (TV) ... Production Company
The Making of the Rose Parade 2005 (2004) (TV) ... Production Company
Targeted: Osama Bin Laden (2004) (TV) ... Production Company
The True Story of Blackhawk Down (2003) (TV) ... Production Company
The True Story of Killing Pablo (2002) (TV) ... Production Company
Posted for FlAttorney by TAB
Charlie Wilson and Ronald Reagan’s War by Dr. Jack Wheeler
Thursday, 27 December 2007
10.08.01: Gulbuddin and the CIA, D.J.W. - - As many recent commentaries have noted, there was no unified command of Afghan "Mujahaddin" freedom fighters resisting the Soviet occupation of their country in the 1980s. There were about half a dozen major groups and a host of smaller ones. The legendary commander Ahmad Shah Massoud, assassinated by OBL (Osama Bin Laden) agents just before The Atrocity, belonged to the "Jamiat" group led by Burhanuddin Rabbani. Qari Baba, the famous commander in Ghazni who looked like a cross between Buddha and Genghiz Khan, was part of the Harakat group. Ramatullah Safi was the most outstanding commander of the Gailani group. Abdul Haq was the same for the Younis Khalis group. With one exception, all of these groups and commanders pretty much cooperated with each other. Their political leaders met and worked together (I attended some of their meetings), their commanders and bands of fighters did the same (which I witnessed in the field). Rarely did they fight amongst themselves, but focused instead on their common enemy, the Shuravi -- Afghan for Soviet Russians.
The exception was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, leader of the "Hezbis." I went inside Afghanistan with every major Mujahaddin group - except for the Hezbis. I met Gulbuddin and interviewed him in August 1984 - and found him to be an Islamic Fascist, an admirer of the Ayatollah Khomeini, and a hater of America. Everywhere I went inside Afghanistan in the 1980s, the story was always the same: the Hezbis spent their time fighting other Mujahaddin groups for turf instead of the Shuravi. Rather than fight for the freedom of Afghanistan, Gulbuddin hoarded his weapons, planning a takeover of his country once the other Mujahaddin had liberated it for him.
It may -- or it may not -- come as a surprise to learn that the CIA was obsessively insistent that the lion's share of arms and support they gave to the Afghan Mujahaddin went to Gulbuddin. The term "obsessive" is in no way hyperbolic. The CIA's obsession to support Gulbuddin in vast preference to all other Mujahaddin leaders bordered on the pathological. Every CIA agent I ever talked to -- especially the armchair analysts at Langley - - was insufferably condescending whenever I would state that Gulbuddin's people did no fighting, that the other groups were begging for weapons while the Hezbis had an oversupply of weapons they didn't use. The agents would patronizingly assure me their "intel" contradicted what I and every other independent observer who actually went into Afghanistan saw with our own eyes - - so we all must be wrong.
A number of United States Congressmen also had figured out that the CIA was lying about Gulbuddin's effectiveness, and were well aware of the great danger he was to the future of Afghanistan. I once delivered a personally written note from one such Congressman (Charlie Wilson - FlA) to Burhanuddin Rabbani.(1) We had met a number of times before, but on this occasion we had a long discussion. The note was an explicit request for Rabbani to have his people spare no effort to assassinate Gulbuddin. "If you do not do this," I explained to Rabbani and his chief aide, "Engineer" Abdul Rahim, "any victory the Afghans achieve over the Shuravi will result in chaos and disaster. Gulbuddin has to be killed, killed dead, if Afghanistan is to have any future and any freedom." After our discussion, the Congressman's letter, of which no copies were made, was burned before my eyes. A few days later, Gulbuddin's Toyota Land Cruiser blew up in Peshawar, Pakistan. Gulbuddin's driver was killed, but Gulbuddin, although injured, survived. Subsequent attempts also failed.
When the Shuravi were forced to retreat in defeat in February, 1989, freedom for Afghanistan seemed clearly on the horizon. Yet right on schedule, Gulbuddin began his war for power. While Rabbani, as leader of the strongest and best organized freedom fighter group, attempted to put together a coherent government in Kabul, Gulbuddin began shelling the city. The CIA and their Pakistan counterpart, the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) forced Rabbani to accept a coalition government with Gulbuddin as Prime Minister, and with it, the resignation of Massoud as his Defense Minister. Massoud's departure as Defense Minister precipitated Afghanistan's collapse into the utter chaos that made the Taliban possible.
Afghanistan, it must be understood, is an artificially created country, an ethnic hodge-podge glued together for the purpose of keeping the British Raj and the Russian Empire apart and not touching. Look at the map and you'll see this narrow sliver of Afghan territory, the "Wakhan Corridor," on the top right corner that goes all the way to China, barely separating what is now Tadjikistan (but in the late 1800s Russian Central Asia) and what is now Pakistan (but then British India).
Pakistan is similarly artificial, another ethnic stir-fry created as a refuge for Indian Moslems who didn't want to be ruled by Indian Hindus (who outnumbered them 2-to-1) when India got its independence after WWII.
North of the Hindu Kush mountains in Afghanistan, the ethnic majorities are Tadjik and Uzbek. South the main tribe is the Pushtuns. Pakistan is composed of Baluchi nomads in its south western deserts bordering Iran, Sindhis in the southern Indus region, Punjabis in the central Indus - and along the border with Afghanistan it's all Pushtun. The Pak government has never exercised true sovereignty over the Pushtun area, known as the NWFA (North West Frontier Agency), and has always been terrified of the demand for an independent "Pushtunistan" breaking Pakistan apart.
It was this fear that caused the Paks to freak out when Afghanistan went completely anarchic. Gulbuddin was their Pushtun guy. The Tadjiks -- Rabbani and Massoud - - were out. The Paks had gotten their wish and the Chinese proverb about being careful for what you wished for had become nightmarishly apropos. In desperation, they turned to a group of nutcase fanatics calling themselves "students" ("Taliban") although most of them were thoroughly illiterate. The ISI saw an opportunity for a business relationship in the bargain - - a joint venture to operate the heroin business.
Sixty percent of the world's heroin comes out of Afghanistan. That only happens with the full cooperation of the governments involved -- in this case the Taliban government in Afghanistan and the ISI "government within a government" in Pakistan. With the money from the heroin trade, the Taliban were able to bribe opposing commanders and proceeded to take over the country with hardly a battle. Only Massoud resisted. The Taliban chased Gulbuddin out of Kabul and into exile with his Islamic Fascist friends in Iran.
The point to all of this history is that the CIA’s buddy Gulbuddin has publicly announced - on September 18, one week after The Atrocity - his support for Osama Bin Laden and his intention to return to Afghanistan to join Al Qaeda. The CIA owes Afghanistan an abject apology for its disgraceful support of this evil man. Were it not for this support, Afghanistan would have had a chance to stabilize in the 1990s, the Taliban would have not come to power, Al Qaeda would not have established a sanctuary under Taliban protection, and given that, The Atrocity of September 11 might never have occurred.
------------
Footnote by FlA & Co.
(1) Whenever I (Dr. Jack Wheeler) came back from Afghanistan throughout the 1980s, along with various people in the Reagan White House, the Pentagon and Congress, I would always brief Charlie Wilson. My years of ranting at him about Gulbuddin finally got through to him in early 1987 – because it wasn't just me. "Why do you and everyone else who's been inside [Afghanistan] tell me one thing, and the same thing, about the Hezbis, while the CIA tells me the opposite?" he mused. “Because the CIA is lying to you, Charlie," I replied. "What do you suggest?" he asked. After a discussion, he took out a piece of paper, wrote a letter, put it in an envelope and said, "Take this to Rabbani." Burhanuddin Rabbani was the leader of the Jamiat mujahedeen, ones who did a lot of the fighting. Massoud was a Jamiat commander.
It wasn't long before I was in Islamabad to hand Rabbani the letter. Its contents can be surmised from this excerpt from "Gulbuddin and the CIA," which at the time could not mention any names. A number of United States congressmen also had figured out that the CIA was lying about Gulbuddin's effectiveness, and were well aware of the great danger he was to the future of Afghanistan. I once delivered a personally written note from one such congressman to Burhanuddin Rabbani. We had met a number of times before, but on this occasion we had a long discussion. The note was an explicit request for Rabbani to have his people spare no effort to assassinate Gulbuddin. "If you do not do this," I explained to Rabbani and his chief aide, Abdul Rahim, "any victory the Afghans achieve over the Shuravi [Soviets] will result in chaos and disaster. Gulbuddin has to be killed, killed dead, if Afghanistan is to have any future and any freedom."
After our discussion, the congressman's letter, of which no copies were made, was burned before my eyes. A few days later, Gulbuddin's Toyota Land Cruiser blew up in Peshawar, Pakistan. Gulbuddin's driver was killed, but Gulbuddin, although injured, survived. Subsequent attempts also failed. If Crile had written more of the truth, it would have made a better book and movie. The same goes for the crux of the plot, providing the mujahedeen with Stinger missiles.
# # #
Tom Hanks Tells Hollywood Whopper in 'Charlie Wilson's War'
By Melissa Roddy, AlterNet
December 21, 2007
- - Alternet is an anti right-wing news organization. Interesting this article appeared on their site. - FlA
Posted for FlAttorney by TAB
Posted for FlAttorney by TAB
 “These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world... And then we f**ked up the endgame.” – Charlie Wilson (Movie Close) A more accurate movie closing statement by Charlie Wilson would have been “Our ultra liberal Democrats-George Soros Shadow Party movie was to be a glorious anti-war and anti-Republican attack... And then Joanne Herring and major Houston Republicans f**ked up our endgame” (Due to a threatened Herring and GOP “friends of the court” lawsuit, substantial modifications along with 42 minutes was deleted from the original movie four(4) weeks before it’s intended wide release in theaters. Tom DeLay's attorney, Dick DeGuerin, a life long "yellow dog" Texas Democrat, lead the lawsuit charge against Universal Pictures et. al.) 12.21.07: Theater Movie | 12.22.07: 2 Hour TV Documentary: The True Story of Charlie Wilson 04.22.04: Book| Support Articles, Docs, Intel & "Dirt" | FR members comments | Purpose of this FR Thread The Definitive News Article (3 pgs): How Joanne Herring won Charlie Wilson's War Excellent resource links & videos for Joanne and Charlie | Reagan's War, Not Charlie Wilson's by FR CutePuppy Special FR Section: Sorry Charlie, This Is Michael Vickers's War | FR Threads: Michael (Vickers) Aaron Sorkin’s War a.k.a. busted drug addict and ultra liberal Democrat that never gave a dime to a Republican. The latter also applies to actor Tom Hanks, who also bought the CWW movie rights, and movie director Mike Nichols. Box Office: Summary | U.S.A. | Foreign | More: IMDB | All FR Charlie Wilson (War) Threads  |
Linked to FlAttorney's FR "Straight Talk" page
Posted for FlAttorney by TAB
|
(Movie Close) “These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world... And then we f**ked up the endgame.” – Charlie Wilson A more accurate movie closing statement by Charlie Wilson would have been: “Our ultra liberal Democrats-George Soros Shadow Party movie was to be a glorious anti-war and anti-Republican attack... And then Joanne Herring and key Houston Republicans f**ked up our endgame” Due to a threatened Herring and GOP “friends of the court” lawsuit, substantial modifications along with 42 minutes were deleted from the original movie four(4) weeks before it’s intended wide release in theaters. Tom DeLay's attorney,Dick DeGuerin, a life long "yellow dog" Texas Democrat, led the lawsuit charge against Universal Pictures et. al. Purpose of this FR Thread 12.21.07: Theater Movie | 12.22.07: TV Documentary: The True Story of Charlie Wilson 04.22.04: Book | Support Articles, Docs, Intel & "Dirt" | FR members comments | How Joanne Herring won Charlie Wilson's War | Videos: Joanne & Charlie resource links Reagan's War, Not Charlie Wilson's by FR CutePuppy Special FR Section: Sorry Charlie, This Is Michael Vickers's War | FR Threads: Michael (Vickers) Aaron Sorkin’s War a.k.a. busted drug addict and ultra liberal Democrat that never gave a dime to a Republican. The latter also applies to actor Tom Hanks, who also bought the CWW movie rights, and movie director Mike Nichols. Box Office: Summary | U.S.A. | Foreign | More: IMDB | All FR Charlie Wilson (War) Threads NOTE: It is very important you READ the purpose of this thread. I also appreciate FR NancyTx recapitulation of my key positions HERE. It is very important that you understand the movie was funded and produced by George “Soros Shadow Party" ("SSP") Participant Productions, the same company that produced Al Gore's highly fraudulent movie "An Inconvenient Truth" and the barf-fest movie "Jimmy Carter Man From Plains". Both Carter and Gore were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize - in different years - in which George Soros had significant influence with key members of the Noble selection committee in both awards. If you visit the movie's official website do not respond or send money to the "Act Now" request by TakePart.com. “TakePart.com: Social Action Network” is a SSP organization like ultra radical “MoveOn.org: Democracy in Action”. TakePart states your “Charlie Wilson’s War” (“CWW”) donation will go to “Fulfilling Charlie’s hope of rebuilding Afghanistan” and supporting causes that help veterans” through “Roots of Peace.org”, which is another SSP front organization. In my and other highly knowledgeable individuals opinions, and it is only our opinions, the purpose of both SSP CWW related organizations are fraudulent and your donations will go directly to funding Democratic candidates, along with SSP agendas that are destroying our great Country. The Soros Shadow Party criminal enterprise has a well established history of using "public causes”, such as this one, Al Gore’s fraudulent man-made global warming movie, and others, to obtain donations to their 501(C)(3) tax exempt non-profit organizations so they don't have to FEC disclosure donations sources. They then illegally funnel the money to Democrat's campaigns and other SSP political interests and front-operations. - FlAttorney |
Update: Posted for FlAttorney by TAB