Reagan officials: Charlie Wilson’s War is ‘left-wing myth.’
By on Dec 22nd, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Reagan officials: Charlie Wilson’s War is ‘left-wing myth.’
The Washington Times writes that, “Conservative officials who served in the Reagan administration are upset by the left-wing slant of the new movie” — Charlie Wilson’s War. They “said the movie promotes the left-wing myth that the CIA-led operation funded Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda and ultimately produced” the 9/11 attacks. “The officials blamed the anti-Reagan slant of the film on the movie’s screenwriter, Aaron Sorkin.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Now it’s the film maker’s fault that the truth has a liberal bias?
December 22nd, 2007 at 6:33 pmheaven forbid the reaganite’s myths are ever debunked…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
December 22nd, 2007 at 6:34 pmWhat’s funny is that the whole CIA funding islamists thing is very soft-pedalled in the movie. if the real story had been told, the fascisti would be demonstrating at the theaters. Facts lean left, that’s all there is to it. it’s to be expected in a liberal democracy.
December 22nd, 2007 at 6:35 pmI’m going to see it tonight. I hope it is left wing as possible.
December 22nd, 2007 at 6:36 pmAny chance these unnamed “conservative officials who served in the Reagan administration” might actually go on record? Why not? Are they afraid to answer questions? Then they should STFU.
December 22nd, 2007 at 6:37 pmFourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism
#11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.
December 22nd, 2007 at 6:43 pmcharlie wilson’s war.
December 22nd, 2007 at 6:43 pmThey “said the movie promotes the left-wing myth that the CIA-led operation funded Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda and ultimately produced†the 9/11 attacks.
Myth? the CIA DID fund OBL. It’s not a myth, it’s a fact.
Sheeeesh.
December 22nd, 2007 at 6:45 pmTHE NEOCONS AND THE PNAC’ers ARE FINALLY STARTING TO BE EXPOSED. HISTORY IS FINALLY STARTING TO RESEMBLE THE TRUTH. REAGAN, GHWB AND GWB ARE ALL GOING TO BE EXPOSED FOR WHAT THEY WERE. PUPPETHEADS
NEVER MIND GWB’S TAX CUTS…..WE’RE GOING TO REPEAL THE REAGAN TAX CUTS FOR THE PHILTHY RICH
December 22nd, 2007 at 6:46 pmThe righties are going to be pissed off about the truth?!
Welcome to my world…
December 22nd, 2007 at 6:55 pmNevermind that Charlie Wilson was a Democrat from Texas.
Rep Dana Rohrabaker (R-CA) knows all about the US’s involvement with arming and training OBL’s mujahadeen to fight the soviets.
December 22nd, 2007 at 7:38 pmif the wingnuts hate “charlie wilson’s war” wait till they see the new “harold and kumar”:
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2007/12/harold_kumar_2_trailer_finally.html
(get some popcorn, this is going to be fun!)
December 22nd, 2007 at 7:40 pmWill the right-wingnuts now attack Rep Dana Rohrabacher?
December 22nd, 2007 at 7:43 pmDon’t forget , folks, first we funded these Ismlamic radicals to draw the Soviets into a war—–then they invaded Afghanistan and got bogged down in the war just like the US wanted.
December 22nd, 2007 at 7:58 pmSpeaking of Hollywood, it seems the writers are having a tough time demonizing their “enemy”, because they don’t know who he / they are:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117978127.html?categoryid=2821&cs=1
With Letterman, Leno, Stewart and Colbert deciding that the writers aren’t making a good faith effort to resolve the dispute, the Writers Guild of America is getting desperate for someone to disparage as the “real problem”.
Bottom line, WGA needs to get back to the bargaining table, before they lose all support from their peers.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:05 pmFrom the excellent article on Pakistan in National Geographic Magazine:
That all changed in December 1979, when the Soviet Union invaded neighboring Afghanistan, driving hundreds of thousands of Afghan refugees—mainly conservative Pashtun tribesmen—across the border into Pakistan. Within months Zia’s Islamist dream got a huge boost: The United States and Saudi Arabia joined Pakistan in a covert alliance to supply arms, training, and billions of dollars to an anti-Soviet insurgency in Afghanistan. The motto of Zia’s army—Jihad in the Service of Allah—became a rallying cry for thousands of mujahideen training in camps funded by the CIA in Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province. Over time, Zia’s agenda, and that of the United States, became indistinguishable: If Zia wanted to Islamize Pakistan while mobilizing support for the anti-Soviet jihad, all the more power to him. Besides, the fundamentalist madrassas of northwestern Pakistan made excellent recruiting centers for mujahideen—young fighters who saw the struggle against the Soviets as a holy war.
JIHAD in the service of Allah….Indeed!!
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:07 pmHere’s more info (courtesy Josh Marshall) regarding the Rohrabacher story I linked above, for anyone so inclined.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:08 pmhttp://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/000233.php
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/000257.php
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/000258.php
Hell this is easy to straiten out, charlie the chick and the CIA guy are still alive.
Ask them………………
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:13 pmMyth? the CIA DID fund OBL. It’s not a myth, it’s a fact.
Sheeeesh.
Comment by JPV
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:18 pmSimilar to giving Saddam weapons then supposedly going after him for having weapons. I am wondering if that is also a left wing myth.
‘Charlie Wilson’s War’ Was Unlikely, But True
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:22 pmhttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17424117
No need to wonder.
WaPo: U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1230-04.htm
Rumsfeld ‘offered help to Saddam’
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:29 pmDeclassified papers leave the White House hawk exposed over his role during the Iran-Iraq war
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html
Waa — waaaaaa — frickin’ waaaaaaaaa.
Movie, anyone? Ya know, make believe? Grown-ups pretending to be somebody else?
Didn’t hear these WATBs crying when Sly when into North Veet-nam and wacked’em a whole passel o’ them Islamunistodemofascist Veet Kongs, now didja? Or when he went into Afghanistan and wacked’em a whole passel o’them Communodemofascist Soveets, now didja?
Or were those historically accurate recreations of actual events?
The problem with the Right in America today isn’t that reality has a liberal bias, it’s that reality has a reality bias. Out there in Metropolitan Wingnutistan they want everything to be fiction — John Wayne style.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:33 pmBottom line, WGA needs to get back to the bargaining table, before they lose all support from their peers.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
In a typical Loon Jason sort of way, nothing that he has to say disparaging the writers guild relates to the article he linked to. The article also says nothing about “With Letterman, Leno, Stewart and Colbert deciding that the writers aren’t making a good faith effort to resolve the dispute..”
Loon Jason, if you are going to link, please link to something that supports your argument. That is the only way you will ever be taken seriously around here.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:34 pmCan not forget this handshake
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:36 pmEver notice how when a skunk sprays, it hits everyone around ?
Reagan – Contras, guns for the mideast in violation of the law, funding Afghanistan to foment war (and increase the flow of poppies into the USA )
Bush 1 – Carlyle Group, Bin Laden family is a personal friend. I really wonder how the repubs criticize Putin for being KGB when Bush 1 was CIA.
Bush 2 – Well we know the mess we’re in now.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:43 pmJust to set the record straight, and only because his name was mentioned: Ronald Reagan was a traitor to his country who undermined the presidency before holding the office himself. His traitorous tendencies were evident during his Presidency of the SAG.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:49 pmHistory Channel has a show about Charlie Wilson on right now. repeated at midnight EST.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:50 pmYes.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:57 pm9 Comment by rastaman
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:09 pmI wish I could share your optimism ….I am still seeing too many out there, not paying attention, have no clue maybe glance at Faux news every now and then… for the most part these are Christians, professionals, college students… I am going to guess that the church has done quite a job on brainwashing. There is much work to be done in 11 months.
The officials blamed the anti-Reagan slant of the film on the movie’s screenwriter, Aaron Sorkin.â€
It’s not like they can blame the “anti-Reagan” slant on the truth or anything.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:13 pmBottom line, WGA needs to get back to the bargaining table, before they lose all support from their peers.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 22, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
Yer “grasp” on almost EVERYTHING in life is so weak (w/ one GLARING exception), I don’t think the WGA needs your advice on anything.
BTW, no post on “Hill’reh”??? What’s up w/ that? Mommie come home?
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:14 pmre 23:
And don’t forget how Reagan sat out WWII making war films instead of fighting, like Jimmy Stewart, among other real american movie stars.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:15 pmCan not forget this handshake
Comment by had enough — December 22, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
Thank you for posting that link. Anyone running against a GOOPer s/b running that snippet endlessly.
I personally suspect the US let the Iraqis string Saddam up as quickly as they did just to make sure he never got to tell the world EVERYTHING he knew about Reagan, and BigDick, and Rummy, and Brusch’s daddy.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:17 pmRon Reagan was the greatest American in anyone’s memory! Please don’t point out the stupidity of this right wing myth. It weirds em out. It is sort of like that drink 8 glasses of water per day shit. No reality but a big following. Oh yeah, you also don’t have to wait 30 minutes after you eat before it is safe to swim again.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:18 pmEver notice how when a skunk sprays, it hits everyone around ?
Comment by MapleStreet — December 22, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
Uh, yeeeeah…. and also, that skunks never seem to mind their own smell?
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:18 pmOh yeah, you also don’t have to wait 30 minutes after you eat before it is safe to swim again.
Comment by dbadass — December 22, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
Oh yeah? Well, what happens when you EAT 8 servings of sh*t a day?
Huh? Mr Smartypants? Mebbe we should ask one of the trolls. THEY’LL know the answer to that one, fer sure!
Hey, Hendler… got a question fer ya, ‘n ya finally git ta be right ‘n an authority, fer once, ‘n all that cool stuff! Footie, Frankie??? Any of you guys around? You guys’ll DEFINITELY be able to answer this question.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:23 pmSpeaking of Repug follies, did you hear that Panama is officially looking into the deaths of the Bush the Elders invasion of a different sovreign country to get back at a CIA backed thug? Repugs create the mess they claim to want to clean up.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:29 pmHey Hendler! That dog don’t hunt!
I personally know a few “conservatives” that are really interested in this flick. Keep on slinging your spew. Please!
There are more than just a handful of people on the fence these days.
If there’s one thing in this world I can bank on, it’s this…
People do not like getting the shaft and playing the fool.
Keep b@tching about this flick – please.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:31 pmBottom line, WGA needs to get back to the bargaining table, before they lose all support from their peers.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 22, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
Having read that article, I think it’s safe to say, “Hendler, yer an idiot”.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:38 pmThis is not a matter of interpretation. The CIA conducted a covert op, code name CYCLONE, that funneled weapons and cash into the hands of the mujaheddin through Saudi and other Arab channels. There’s no documented evidence that any resources definitively ended up in bin Laden’s hands, but the near-absent quality control of the operation suggests that it was a real possibility. Ours was a campaign against communism, remember; so long as our assets were putatively anti-communist, we gave little regard to their other credentials, or lack thereof.
As to bin Laden, the man made his name in the struggle against the Soviets, and his success gave him the credibility to breathe life into al Qaeda. It is the Reagan apologists who are disingenuous here.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:39 pmSo long as they don’t start disparaging SuperBad, I don’t care what films the freaks have issues with. Maybe a rerelease oe Jesus Christ Superstar will sidetrack them for a tad while they unbunch their panties. BTW: Billy Jack liked hippies
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:41 pmComment by dbadass — December 22, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
Heck! If they re-released “Life of Brian” the neocons would probably bomb England.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:47 pmHeck! If they re-released “Life of Brian†the neocons would probably bomb England.
Comment by pete — December 22, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
One of the best comic films of all time!!!
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:50 pmBest to you/yours!!
Best to you/yours!!
Comment by dbadass — December 22, 2007 @ 9:50 pm
Back at you.
“Blessed are the cheese makers”.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:52 pmWhine, whine, whine…I remember a certain tv movie that tried to pin responsibility for 9-11 on Clinton.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:55 pmAlmost every single item Hendler posts is just a false flag or a distraction.
It’s his job… he’s a troll.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:03 pmRepubliscum always claim that Hollywood is “left.”
Watch the history channel and its two hour documentary on Charlie Wilson – at the end, the defeat of the Russians in Afghanistan (with US help) left a vacuum which gave rise to the Taliban and OBL.
Jeesh, when the facts are laid out, if they don’t match the Repugnicants’ view of the world, they deny, slander, and gather their forces to collectively denounce them.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:05 pm#50 Comment by Marie — December 22, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
Republiscum always claim that Hollywood is “left.â€
Yeah, just like the leftard MSM. You know the ones, the NYT, Washington Post, Time Mag, Newsweak, Wall Street Journal, etc, etc. are all “left”. So whenever they disagree with the reality based community, it proves how “correct” the wingnut position is. I mean, after all, “even the NYT said it! And they are in your camp!”
Standard neocon talking point, that. I’m tired of seeing it used here so often by the ones that live under the bridge. The only ones that it might affect are those who pay no attention to what is going on.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:23 pmReagan, the great republican puppet. Nancy, ‘just say no to drugs’…say that really worked….uk.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:37 pmOr as Timothy Leary preferred, ” Just say no thank you.”
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:40 pmJust saw the movie. I do not in the least understand why anyone would think it had a “left-wing slant”. If anythng the heroes (Charlie Wilson/Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts) were right-wing fighters of the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan. They were shown as people of loose sexual morality but still protrayed positively as the heroes of getting resitance funding eanbling teh Soviets to be defeated.
I think the right-wing just reflexively cries out “left-wing propaganda” to anything Hollywood puts out.
Osama was not mentioned in the film.
No doubt the movie took liberties with some facts to heightened the drama and throw a litle sex in there. But the basic story is true. And if the US is still trying to claim this never happened, they have a lot of history to rewrite.
Read Charlie’s comments today about the film and notice what he thinks about Iraq at the end,
[url=http://www.shsu.edu/~pin_www/T@S/2004/wilsonspeech04.html] Charlie Wilson Today [/url]
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:59 pmAnd here I thought this was common knowledge.
I guess it was common knowledge only to those of us who actually read.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:34 pmleft-wing myth that the CIA-led operation funded Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda and ultimately produced†the 9/11 attacks.
Guilty as charged, dufi.
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:19 amI really am getting sick of crediting you lunatics as merely fantasy fiction fans when you talk this crap.
Comment by Kilo
Then do yourself a favor and go away.
Your rethoric is simply boring.
December 23rd, 2007 at 1:58 amYou know what? I thought that this movie wasn’t going to be all that wonderful and thought… well, I’ll see it next spring on Pay Per View.
Now that the Conservatives are having their histrionics about it… that just pursuaded me to see it now at the theatres.
A similar thing happened in 1988 with “The Last Temptation of Christ.” If the conservatives didn’t cry foul, that movie would have flopped at the box office.
As they say, you can’t pay for this kind of publicity!
See you at the movie!
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:00 amGhost Wars: How Reagan Armed the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan
During Reagan’s 8 years in power, the CIA secretly sent billions of dollars of military aid to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan in a US-supported jihad against the Soviet Union.
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/10/ghost_wars_how_reagan_armed_the
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:08 amWow, Kilo, 7 posts. Is that a record? Do the Republicans pay you double for damage control?
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:15 am“Damage control ? I don’t even know what this is supposed to mean.
There’s a movie out about a how a Democrat used his position on appropriations committees to secretly funnel funds to the Afghan Muj.
Any GOP concern so far ?”
Well, sh!t, I have no idea why you are so damned defensive then. If it is no big deal I don’t know why you are posting so much.
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:50 am“Frankly, I’m not aware of any GOP angle to this.
So what would I be getting paid for you muppet ?”
Hmm, last I knew Reagan officials were Republican (and honestly, they were the last REAL Republicans). You losers now couldn’t hold Reagan’s jock. You are a joke.
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:54 amThe fact is the right supplied the mujahadeen. You can deny it all you want Kilo, doen’t make you right.
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:10 am“Wow, didn’t you put up a fight. LOL
Pleased with how that went are we ?”
Put up a fight for what? You righties seem to think sending other people’s kids to fight for our “freedoms” is somehow honorable. It isn’t. Send the forces when it is necessary. But you guys don’t care about the poor bastards dying for your ideology, do you?
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:13 amToo bad this website doesn’t have any editors. I didn’t pay to come here, but that doesn’t mean I want to see the recrudescence of “republicans hate facts” over and over, in MiXEd CApS.
Thanks to Kilo for trying to manhandle that major league ignoramus.
Kilo is, of course, correct (in #41) that the CIA never directly funded Osama.
Why does none of this mention that it was Carter who first sent the old British sniper rifles into Afghanistan? Charlie Wilson doesn’t mention it.
And by the way, Reagan did serve in WWII, but not right away, and he only served in the First Motion Picture Unit. As a B movie actor, that was probably appropriate.
Not that this is entirely relevant, but since many people are talking about Reagan’s WWII era service, people should really take the time to see “The Sante Fe Trail” (released 1941 starring Flynn/Reagan) and “King’s Row” (released 1942, starring Reagan).
The first movie is a racist’s rewrite of the story of John Brown.
The second movie seems very much like pro-peace-with-the-Nazis propaganda if you really think about it, in the context of the time. Reagan waxes on about peaceful Europe. They get away with it by making it a period piece.
Anyway, this is a nice blog, but the commenting needs some editing.
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:00 amVive la differance!
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:54 amReagan was a racist pig who supported Apartheid. The guy he put in charge of the US’s environment was a rapturist who believed that the end of the world was nigh, and a good thing.
He got into power by slamming Carter for being too soft on Iran, and then promptly sold Iran weapons.
His first term was an economic disaster, and his second term saw him hiking taxes via eliminating tax loopholes and raising income taxes on the poor. You see, he wasn’t in favour of the rich, who could better afford it, actually paying any more at the time.
His presidency saw America go from being the world’s biggest creditor to being in major debt, and his contribution to world politics was basically being in the right place at the right time when the Soviet Union imploded.
His name is also tied to genocide.
That he operated in a moral grey area by helping a country, which would later go on to be somewhat terrible, defend itself from a foreign agressor is the least of his sins. In fact, going on what was known at the time, one could argue that helping Afghanistan was the right thing to do.
December 23rd, 2007 at 11:38 amThat he operated in a moral grey area by helping a country, which would later go on to be somewhat terrible, defend itself from a foreign agressor is the least of his sins. In fact, going on what was known at the time, one could argue that helping Afghanistan was the right thing to do.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — December 23, 2007 @ 11:38 am
Helping Afghanistan was not the problem. The problem was that they did it by creating a monster — and then abandoned it.
December 23rd, 2007 at 11:50 amNPR has a piece on the movie and an interview with the Wilson and author of the book. To me the RW shouldn’t be scared of the movie. I always thought Reagan’s winning the Cold War b.s. but his influence really helped the Democratic party boy get what he needed. The movie, I hope, will also show how bad the USSR really was. They did unconscionable things like booby trap children’s toys.
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:08 pmAnd being Americans, always “looking forward”, we never look back to learn from past mistakes. Creating monsters for short-term goals, even if they come back and take a big bite out of our ass later on seems to be the “American Way”: Meet the New Bin Laden.
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:12 pmtoasterhead
When have you ever known a Republican to actually ever do something properly?
That said, Afghanistan, well something had to be done. Getting involved was the right thing to do, where he failed was, as you said, abandoning the monster when it was no longer useful.
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:14 pmthe people on the right who are crying about this are the same ones who said it’s ok to make stuff up and present it as fact in “path to 9/11″
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:54 pmThey did unconscionable things like booby trap children’s toys.
Comment by Russ — December 23, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
Good thing America never painted cluster bombs to look like food packets.
December 23rd, 2007 at 1:05 pmIT WAS OK TO FINANCE AND SUPPORT AL-QUEIDA IN AFEGANISTAN TO FIGHT THE RUSSIANS, BUT WHEN 9/11, WHICH WAS AN INSIDE JOB, CAME ALONG AND THEY HAD TO FIND A SCAPE GOAT. THE USA HAS FINANCED TERRORIST ANTI-DEMOCRAT PARA-MILITARY MILICIAS IN NICARAGUA. FINANCING AND SUPPORTING TERRORISM IS NOT SOMETHING NEW FOR THE USA.
December 23rd, 2007 at 2:31 pmIn any case, the suposed Islamic extremist don’t need to send terrorists to the USA. They have Bush and Chenney JUNTA doing a great job in destroying what was once a beacom of light has become a black hole.
December 23rd, 2007 at 2:34 pmStupid Repubs can’t face reality.
December 23rd, 2007 at 2:45 pmThat simple.
Such a good job in fact that Bin Laden dropped out of the competition.
Why have there been no attacks since 9/11? Because (a) they would be woefully puny compared to what BushCo can do to America (b) they would be redundant (you don’t kill an enemy who is busy committing suicide) and (c) they could be counter-productive in that an attack by Al Qaeda could add cement to the Coalition of the Dwindling.
Talk about “Heck of A Job”.
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:05 pmComment by No Eponym At This Time
Thanks for the info. Yes I don’t think there is a whole heck of a lot of difference between Democrats and Republicans in the big picture. Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat. Holy Crap!
Interesting stuff on Carter. I wonder if the old sniper rifles were a very small contribution, more or less a political move to please as many people as possible.
We need to dig up Ronnie’s corpse, cuz of how great he wuz.
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:22 pmLefty Patriot,
The US has done some things unwarranted but the cluster bombs that looked like food was not an intentional thing.
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:24 pmThe US has done some things unwarranted but the cluster bombs that looked like food was not an intentional thing.
Comment by Russ — December 23, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
I wish I could believe that, but with the sociopaths that have been in charge all too often over the years, I’m afraid they aren;t worth the benefit of the doubt.
December 23rd, 2007 at 11:39 pmThe conflicts in the Mideast began way before the Soviet’s invaded Afghanistan and will rage after the United States will have left the region…if ever it could afford to.
But it cannot.
The film is fact-based, the dialogue while snappy, is believable. It is an immensely entertaining flick, perhaps the year’s best. It demonstrates to the world the wisdom of the American character, inventiveness, ingenuity, courage, and conviction. And faith. And what the Democrat Party once, but no longer, stood for. Liberation AND nation building. Liberal = Liberty, Liberation.
Probably all the characteristics most readers of this site lack. which probably shows up in their lives as proof.
The film fails in one aspect though. And possibly only Col. Oliver North, the liaison of black operations at the White House under Ronald Reagan, could answer best.
I speak of, whom are we to credit for winning the Cold War? What is myth, what is fact?
Surely, Democrat Wilson was a key figure, among many others (and the film predictably only credits Democrats for the victory as if a Republican president were not sitting in the Oval Office), but the key figure behind crushing the Soviets in Afghanistan and elsewhere was none other than Ronald Reagan who, when asked before becoming President how he will handle the Cold War, answered with four words: “We win; they lose!”
Did you expect liberal Hollywood to tell the whole story? Or the accurate history?
Without the Israelis who captured the thousands of tons of Soviet weapons that the Afghanis used against the invader, and the Israeli agents making deals with the Egyptians with whom they recently signed a peace treaty, we, and they, could not have won.
The weapons were delivered to the Tajik Northern Alliance. Very few went to Osama bin Laden’s Pashtun and Taliban muahajadeen. The film makes that clear. And those who believe otherwise believe in myth-making.
In fact, it was Ronald Reagan who was the power behind crushing the Soviets. It was he who signed the orders and underwrote the money transfers. That is just history, and it cannot be re-written no matter how “uncomfortable” some have become with the idea of the Republican president “winning” the Third World War.
And it was Oliver North who, standing tall, hand raised to swear in, resourcefully, brilliantly and defiantly stood up to a disingenuous and phony Democrat Congress that tried to crush him and punish Reagan for what they too, in their hearts, supported. The whole military and the intelligence community view North as the genuine American hero that he is.
And we as a Nation honor him and his President to this day.
The Soviet invasion and the American response had a far different context decades ago than it would have had these days. Carter, almost comatose, lost almost forty nations to Soviet-funded and inspired insurgency and domination. Reagan recovered these same nations and many others — including all of Eastern and Southern Europe — to civilization.
Ayn Rand, who happens to know because she lived there, as I have, observed that communism AND socialism stinks in theory AND in practice.
I say, those who haven’t walked the walk have NO opinion.
December 25th, 2007 at 4:22 pmSome facts for the commentaries:
Bull Clinton has failed to release 99% of his records to this date. Sandy Berger’s socks have never been recovered. Nor their contents.
The HBO Film on 9-11 was 99% true and accurate and because of political consternation by the left, Disney pulled it from DVD release.
Reagan supplied the Tajik Northern Alliance, not Oasama’s al Q’aida. Sorry to burst your many bubbles. But maybe I should “Rather” not go there.
9-11 was NOT an “inside job”, but rather that of a conspiracy. A conspiracy to which both bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, and Sheik Khalid Mohammed admitted to VOLUNTARILY. All right, Mohammed needed a little persuasion.
I challenge anyone to refute or even negate the following:
Conditions at Abu Ghraib Prison improved markedly AFTER the invasion by Coaltiion troops.
Carter lost 40 nations in Africa, Central and South America, and Asia to the Soviets. Reagan recovered most of them and in addition, all of Eastern Europe and most of the Soviet States.
Reagan decisively beat Carter because Carter was useless as a president then; as he is useless as an ex-president today.
Carter won one state. The American people loved that man!
Carter negotiated the nuclear agreements with the North Koreans under Bull Clinton, with Madeline Albright’s capable assistance. Good job!
Unlike Carter, who waited 444 days before surrendering to the Mullahs in Tehran, Reagan looked the cameras in the eye just as he took office, told the mullahs: “Let my people go!” and not surprisingly they did. Carter’s vocabulary lacked the necessary four words.
Under Carter the United States experienced 21% inflation. Do the math. Many elderly had their retirement savings entirely wiped out. In those days we called it Carter’s Social Security.
Reagan instituted massive tax cuts launching not only the United States, but the rest of the world, on a 27 year economic boom the likes of which have not been seen in history!
Reagan proved that capitalism is the best avenue to prosperity of a society as a whole, providing the best quality of life for most of the people most pf the time. China, Singapore, Thailand, Taiwan, and the states of the former Soviet Union, including Russia, were listening with open ears — unlike America’s leftists who are, as it was observed repeatedly: “Stupid is as Stupid does.”
In other words: Speak facts to a fool and he’ll call you foolish” — Euripides
December 27th, 2007 at 12:15 pm