(Page 2 of 16)
Third, the movie takes several gratuitous swipes at Rudy Giuliani, the timing of which is propitious considering the fact the Reiner released the movie right before the Iowa’s caucuses and the New Hampshire primary.
Fourth, the movie takes a similar swipe at President Reagan, allegedly wondering whether we were still engaged in helping the Afghans in their efforts against the Soviets at a particular point in time.
Lastly, the movie focuses more on Wilson and less on Joanne King Herring (the Houston socialite) who was the real instigator of getting Wilson’s attention on the subject matter. The facts that the movie ignores altogether are that Herring is an admitted conservative and that, except for Wilson, she lived her life in almost exclusively Republican circles.
So, if you look closely at the movie, you get the underlying message: Democrat — good, Republicans — bad.p>It’s also funny that liberals never refer to our efforts in backing the Afghans in their war against the Soviets when they insist that it was the Reagan Administration who initially armed OBL in Afghanistan. It’s certainly not Charlie Wilson’s War then. br> — Chris Hall /p>
“Or, in Charlie’s words which end the film: ‘These things happened. They were glorious, and we changed the world…And then we f*****-up the endgame.’ The movie offers no further elaboration on this statement…”
Actually lots of us “got the message” that with an ounce or two of “follow through” (build the schools, help “police” up the insurgency that followed), we might not have had to go back in officially the next time. That the United States Federal Government, and in particular many of our elected representatives have extreme short attention spans.
No wonder “our” foreign policy is so schizophrenic. My husband and I saw this over the holidays, at a theater near the “federal ghetto” near BWI airport. So maybe the audience was “biased” but we all cheered together when the “hinds” were shot!
Oh, the theater full (I’d estimate it at, at least 300+) and as we all made it out in silence, (not in the same type as say the silence after “The Passion”) people pretty much were saying, “well that puts it all in perspective.” Or “I don’t like the war, but we can’t pull troops out.” Or my favorite, overheard in the ladies room, “I’ve got to get that movie and haul ass some people I know into see it. We did screw up Afghanistan once; we can’t screw it up in either place now.”
No, this was a “FEEL GOOD” since the real enemies were easily identified, and all the stuff about the fragile state of governance in Pakistan boiled down pretty concise — strange that we saw it the same day Bhutto was assassinated.
The CIA “elitist” hacks were the “other group.” They are still there in 2008, along with their State and Defense Departments cohorts, careerists that believe “status quo” is the ideal state.p>My husband and I liked this movie, and for the record, completely agree with Congressman “Charlie” even if he was a Democrat.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?