Lottery Post Journal

Hollywood spits out another crap liberal agenda movie

As I've stated before, it's easy to see how worried Hollywood liberals are by the crappy, liberal agenda-laced movies they spew.  Lately, they've been pretty darn worried, from what I can make out.

The latest piece of garbage is "Charlie Wilson's War", a liberal love-fest that tries to create a connection between Ronald Reagan's support of Afghanistan rebels (against the Soviet Union's invasion/occupation of that country) and the 9/11 attacks on this country.

The problem is that no such connection exists.

Bin Laden created his fortune privately, and was not in Afghanistan at the time.  In fact, he did not go to Afghanistan until Bill Clinton's presidency (right after Bill Clinton passed up the opportunity to sieze him).

The Washington Times had an article this morning which outlines the details, so I'll paste it below, along with the link to the article.

When I saw ads for this movie I was hopeful that it would actually be a pro-USA piece, given that our support of the Afghan rebels was an important factor in destroying the Soviet Union and it's relentless bent on world domination.

Most of the young Internet web-surfers did not live through that period (1980s) or were too young to know about it.  They get their information (and form their opinion based upon) mainstream news media, fringe web sites, and liberal universities.  God help them.  They are being force-fed liberal doctrine that actually suggests that (a) the Soviet Union was a good thing, and (b) that the Reagan administration and their tough stance with the Soviet Union was somehow being the aggressor.  How sad indeed!

I hope this gross distortion called "Charlie Wilson's War" is a complete dud at the box office.  No doubt the Academy will try to give it some awards for so successfully making the Reagan administration look bad, but that would be par for the course.

The movie is so bad that Charlie Wilson himself had to plead with the producers to take some outright lies out of it.

Read on...

Charlie's movie

Washington Times
December 21, 2007

Conservative officials who served in the Reagan administration are upset by the left-wing slant of the new movie about the covert action program that helped Afghan guerrillas defeat the Soviet army during the 1980s.

"Charlie Wilson's War," out today, is based on a book about former Rep. Charles Wilson, Texas Democrat known widely on Capitol Hill during his tenure as "Good Time Charlie" who helped fund the semi-secret war that ultimately helped fell the Soviet Union.

The Reagan-era officials said the movie promotes the left-wing myth that the CIA-led operation funded Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda and ultimately produced the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Bin Laden, the officials said, never got CIA funding or weapons, and was not directly involved in Islamist extremist activities until years after the Afghan operation ended after the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989.

That anti-American aspect of the film, namely that the Afghan operation ultimately caused the September 11 attacks, reportedly was altered after protests from Mr. Wilson and his former fiancee, Joanne Herring.

The movie also erred by showing Mr. Wilson and his CIA collaborator, Gust Avrakotos, as enthusiastic backers of supplying advanced U.S. Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to the Afghan rebels.

Fred Ikle, the undersecretary of defense in the Reagan administration, said the CIA initially fought against sending Stingers, while Mr. Wilson was lukewarm on the matter. Both later supported the plan once rebels began downing Soviet gunships with them.

"Senior people in the Reagan administration, the president, [CIA Director] Bill Casey, [Defense Secretary Caspar] Weinberger and their aides deserve credit for the successful Afghan covert action program, not just Charlie Wilson," Mr. Ikle said in an interview.

The officials blamed the anti-Reagan slant of the film on the movie's screenwriter, Aaron Sorkin, the Hollywood liberal who regularly attacked conservatives on his television drama "The West Wing," also known as "The Left Wing" because of its liberal bias.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071221/NATION/549681582/1008

6 Comments:

  • I wouldn't get so worked up by it, Todd. Reagan was a very popular president. All said and done, I would say even more than Bill Clinton. They can make all the movies they want, it isn't going to change the facts or history in any way.

    By spy153, at 4:32 PM

  • I would agree that Reagan is one of the most popular presidents, but I would disagree about the potential impact of movies in today's culture. It is a visual medium, and human beings are visually-oriented learners.

    I am not "worked up" about it. I am expressing my concern, and sharing an important topic, so that others can understand what is going on. Blogs are a very important counter-balance to the extremely liberal mainstream media. It's how sane people get the real truth out there, and how inquisitive people can keep from being swayed by the socialist message being pushed by the media and liberal politicians.

    By Todd, at 7:26 PM

  • You are right about the media and the news swaying people.
    I use to believe news media for what they said until I realized there are other options to get the facts on a subject.
    Always thought the news media and movie industry was unbiased until I learned otherwise.

    By JAP69, at 7:46 PM

  • @JAP69: I feel *exactly* the same as you. In fact, that is why I am so passionate about these things. I feel like I have been double-crossed by people in the media, who I trusted to give me the facts straight. We are all taught growing up about journalists holding high standards, and being impartial. Then, to learn that it's all B.S. is like a sucker-punch to the gut.

    By Todd, at 7:55 PM

  • In the 80's Saddam tests biological weapons on it's own people to see the effectiveness. The world turns a blind eye because there was a battle between Iran and Iraq, and after the hostage situation in 1979, in Iran, America and the world turned a blind eye to what atrocities he was doing against his innocent civilians.
    Since Iran was the enemy to the U.S., Saddam had a free ride.

    Then the U.S. is hit. (conspiracy).
    Then they turn on Saddam, who was used as additional support to fight against the Iranians. How convenient. "We're done with him". "Let the people hang his a$$"

    Bin Laden is a cohort to this fiasco. Another guy who used to rub noses.

    North Korea has kids souting for tid bits of food on the ground, near markets.

    There's not as much oil in N. Korea.

    By pacattack05, at 8:08 PM

  • Yes, the USA government need to make practical decisions every day. Things change. One day a friend may become an enemy. Sometimes the USA is at fault for things, sometimes they are not. However, we are not at all like the tirants you mentioned. Any comparisons to them I will leave for the fringe wackos.

    By Todd, at 6:36 AM

Post a Comment

<< Home