Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Tom Hanks Tells Hollywood Whopper in 'Charlie Wilson's War'

By Melissa Roddy, AlterNet. Posted December 21, 2007.


Hollywood wants to avoid a key truth about 9/11.
HOLLYWOOD HANKS TELLS CHARLIE WILSON’S WHOPPER

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Are the "New Atheists" As Bad as Christian Fundamentalists?
Frank Schaeffer

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
How a Public Jobs Program Could Put America Back on Track
Julianne Malveaux

DrugReporter:
Pot Is More Mainstream Than Ever, So Why Is Legalization Still Taboo?
Steven Wishnia

Environment:
Why We Need Bees and More People Becoming Organic Beekeepers
Makenna Goodman

Food:
The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America's Emerging Battle Over Food Rights
Makenna Goodman

Health and Wellness:
New York May Stop Heartless Health Insurers from Dropping Coverage When It Stops Being Profitable
William Ehart

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Michelle and Barack's Marriage Has in Common with 56 Million Other Ones
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Melissa Roddy

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

"We just can't deal with this 9/11 thing. Does it have to be so political?" from an anonymous source at Playtone Productions

Charlie Wilson's War purports to be the true story of a hard-partying U.S. congressman from Texas who engineered the defeat of the Soviet Union by the Afghan Mujahiddin. Now there are true stories, and there are true-ish stories. It is a given that, in creating a film narrative, sometimes the truth gets a little bent, but it's against the rules to change facts that change the outcome of history. When telling the story of Antony and Cleopatra, they gotta die at the end, n'est-ce pas? It's inappropriate, for example, to tell the story of World War II and pretend that, because the United States might have given a box of guns to the French Underground, there was no Holocaust. That's a pretty good analogy for what's been done in Charlie Wilson's War.

In the latter half of the movie, there is one big lie and one item of anti-Afghan propaganda. The lie is that U.S. support to the mujahiddin went only to the faction led by Ahmad Shah Massoud, the Afghan leader who was assassinated on Sept. 9, 2001. I spoke with Rep. Charlie Wilson, D-Texas, in 2002, at which time he called Massoud "a Russian collaborator." I find it disingenuous that Wilson and his Hollywood biographers now want to throw their arms around him. (Note: George Crile's book does not make this false claim.) Moreover, if this movie succeeds in convincing Americans that the U.S. support went to Ahmad Shah Massoud alone, it will have effectively let the CIA and Wilson off the hook for their contribution to the circumstances leading up to 9/11. During the 1980s, Wilson engineered the appropriation of approximately $3.5 billion to help the Afghans fight the Soviets. According to Milt Bearden, CIA chief of station to Pakistan, Massoud received less than 1 percent of it.

So, if Massoud was not receiving the $3.5 billion that Congress was sending, who was? There were seven factions based in Pakistan who were the recipients of American largesse, but about 40 percent of it went to a blood-thirsty, fundamentalist, loudly anti-American bastard named Gulbaddin Hekmatyar.

However, instead of using the resources the United States sent him to fight the Soviets, he frequently used them to fight his mujahiddin allies. It was Gulbaddin Hekmatyar who turned Kabul to rubble -- not the Soviets and not the Taliban. Gulbaddin Hekmatyar regularly rocketed his own capitol during his term of office as prime minister. Hekmatyar is renowned for having killed more Afghans than Soviets. He so habitually attacked his mujahiddin allies that many people suspected he was actually a Soviet agent.

Not only is Hekmatyar anti-American, but he and another anti-American fundamentalist, Abdul Rasul Sayaf, received lots of support during the 1980s from the Saudis. That support included cash and thousands of Arab volunteers, including a wealthy young engineer named Osama bin Laden. It was Hekmatyar and Sayaf who, with bin Laden, established terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why after 9/11, Wilson went on Fox News and said, "This was as much my fault as anybody's." He understood the link between U.S. support for these thugs and the events of that terrible day. But Wilson's mea culpa is not included in Charlie Wilson's War, nor is there any mention of Gulbaddin Hekmatyar, Abdul Rasul Sayaf or Arab volunteers. Interestingly, Hekmatyar and the Arab volunteers did make an appearance in an earlier draft of the script, making it clear that their absence from the final cut was no oversight on the part of the filmmakers.

Getting back to Ahmad Shah Massoud ...

As it so happens, Massoud did not receive any financial support from the Saudis, because they mistakenly thought he was a Shia Muslim. He was Sunni. Nevertheless, he was not altogether displeased with the situation, because it meant he didn't have to deal with the Arab jihadis. This is one of several reasons why, had we actually supported Massoud and not Hekmatyar, there would have been no 9/11. To be sure, there were quite a few people during the 1980s, including several U.S. Senators and various journalists, trying to warn Wilson and the CIA that the consequences of supporting Hekmatyar would be globally catastrophic. In response the CIA would always throw up its hands, exclaiming, 'We have no control over the distribution. It's all handled by Pakistan, and the Pakistanis liked Massoud even less than the Saudis.

But if, as is pointed out in Charlie Wilson's War, "He who has the gold makes the rules," then the United States had the power to control distribution. The CIA simply refused to exercise that power, and Wilson faithfully accepted their word. Other members of Congress, such as Sens. Gordon Humphrey, Daniel P. Moynihan and Gary Hart, tried and tried to convince the CIA to take control of distribution.

So, why was so much support funneled to this scumbag, Gulbaddin Hekmatyar? This question leads to the anti-Afghan propaganda part of the movie.

In the same scene in the movie as the misinformation about Massoud is a propagandistic joke deeply offensive to Afghans. This joke (coupled with the Massoud "inaccuracy") is the reason that the Afghan Embassy is boycotting Charlie Wilson's War.

The joke is: "When a Tajik man wants to make love to a woman, his first choice is a Pashtun man."

Why is this propagandistic? Because it supports the idea that Afghans are just too tribal to get along. They've always fought each other. As Wilson once said to me, "You put two Afghans in a room, you end up with seven factions." The trouble with this idea is that Afghanistan has been a cohesive nation for several hundred years.

So who wants the world to believe that Afghans can't get along? Pakistan. The reason for this is the Durrand Line. The Durrand Line is the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and it is not very stable. There are Pashtun tribal regions on both sides of the border, and at some point since the establishment of Pakistan (about 60 years ago), it was suggested that the Pashtuns on both sides of the border should unite to create Pashtunistan. This idea makes the government of Pakistan very nervous. In response, they threw their support to Gulbaddin Hekmatyar in the 1980s, because he agreed not to dispute the border, but also because he was deeply feared and disliked by Afghans, and would thus continue to be reliant on Pakistan as his source of power. Pakistan then convinced the CIA, to the cumulative tune of about $1.5 billion, that Gulbaddin was the guy best suited to whoop-ass against the Soviet Union. Later, during the mid 1990s, when he failed to control Afghanistan on their behalf, Pakistan nurtured the Taliban into power.

So why were these two offenses included in this movie?

1. The Massoud "inaccuracy" was included because Tom Hanks "just can't deal with this 9/11 thing"; and because Wilson and Joanne Herring (played by Julia Roberts in the movie) threatened legal action after reading an earlier, more honest, draft of the screenplay by Aaron Sorkin. Herring was Pakistan's honorary consul to the United States in the 1980s, and as such, enlisted Wilson into supporting the cause of the Afghans. Neither Wilson nor Herring wants history to remember them for their contribution to the events that culminated in 9/11.

2. The really bad joke was included because, when Wilson retired from the House of Representatives, he was so copasetic to Pakistani views that he went to work for Pakistan as their lobbyist -- at the rate of $360,000 per year. Not bad for an old skirt-chasin' boozer.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: 9/11, hollywood, september 11, tom hanks

Melissa Roddy, like several of the principals in the saga of Afghanistan, is a native Texan. An actress based in Los Angeles, she is currently producing and directing a documentary film on the history of Afghanistan from 1979 to 9/11 entitled The Square Root of Terror.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
ah, americans at their best
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy on Dec 21, 2007 3:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the public doesn't know or care (it's so far away- just look at the rest of the states and the disaster that is new orleans, in our own front yard) and the government is corrupt to the core (CIA). welcome aboard the uss titanic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ah, americans at their best Posted by: starvinmarvy
» RE: ah, americans at their best Posted by: Badger1492
» The Murder of Nataline Sarkisyan Posted by: malcolmartin
9/11 was an inside job...
Posted by: rt968 on Dec 21, 2007 3:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems to me that whoever wrote this drivel hasn't done their homework about the 9/11 event. It's still with the presumption that a bunch of Neanderthals from a cave half a world away brought down 3 buildings with 2 planes!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: It never pays... Posted by: boydranchitos
» RE: 9/11 was an inside job... Posted by: thekidde
» RE: 9/11 was an inside job... Posted by: davesilvan
» 9/11 truthiness Posted by: brunowe
» Nothing scares me Posted by: LeftWright
» Their own footprint Posted by: Axiom69
» RE: Their own footprint Posted by: realtruther
» RE: Their own footprint Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Their own footprint Posted by: aichbe
» RE: Their own footprint Posted by: Turiye
» RE: Their own footprint Posted by: aichbe
» RE: Their own footprint Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: 9/11 was an inside job... Posted by: audiodef
» That's because... Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: 9/11 was an inside job... Posted by: britknee
» RE: 9/11 was an inside job... Posted by: nopartygal
» RE: 9/11 was an inside job... Posted by: meremortal
» RE: 9/11 was an inside job... Posted by: meremortal
» RE: 9/11 was an inside job... Posted by: meremortal
» Give it a break EncinoM Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: 9/11 was an inside job... Posted by: nopartygal
» RE: 9/11 was an inside job... Posted by: nopartygal
» RE: 9/11 was an inside job... Posted by: nopartygal
» You sir, have no case... Posted by: jimidee
» RE: 9/11 was an inside job... Posted by: monkeywrench
» Love it... Posted by: JMTulip
» RE: 9/11 was an inside job... Posted by: radicalchic
» RE: 9/11 was an inside job... Posted by: johnjmccarthy
» RE: 9/11 was an inside job... Posted by: sui_generis
old pete
Posted by: old pete on Dec 21, 2007 3:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is important to ask why George Crill's excellent expose is being turned into a whitewash as a film. I haven't yet had the opportunity to watch the movie, but I'll bet that in addition to playing down US responsibility for creating bin Laden's gang of thugs, the Israeli connection as the driving force behind Wilson's efforts is missing, as well.
According to the book, Wilson was recruited surreptitiously by Jewish-American supporters of Israel to aid the anti-Soviet actions, voted onto the House Appropriations Committee by a coalition of Jewish Congressmen(where he could write checks for the cause), introduced to Mossad agents by Ed Koch (another beautiful woman), and goaded into supporting Israeli policies, etc.
The Afghan war was the first step in the neocon war plan to eliminate the enemies of Israel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: old pete Posted by: harrob2
» RE: old pete Posted by: waitingforgodel
» RE: old pete Posted by: old pete
» WRONG Posted by: gellero
» RE: old pete Posted by: Doubtom
tom hanks can't deal with 9/11?
Posted by: Zuma on Dec 21, 2007 4:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and yet made this movie anyway?
to me, that makes 'not dealing with it' a way of [falsely] dealing with it.
and pointedly so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You Mean, Tom Hanks Publicist Couldn't Deal With 9-11
Posted by: rgoalierob on Dec 21, 2007 5:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hanks doesn't have the balls to kill his Golden Goose.
Actors like Danny Glover are more courageous every day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I must disagree...
Posted by: tlv on Dec 21, 2007 5:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do not think 9/11 was about JUST the oil or JUST past relationship with various Mujahadeen leaders that probably should have never taken place. I believe it was about restoring the cash cow that the CIA depended on to fund their operations in the Middle East - HEROIN. Opium poppy production is in full swing since we "liberated" the Afghanis from the Taliban.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: An Afghani is a bank note Posted by: DesertStone
» CIA-Heroin connection??. Posted by: gellero
Thanks for saving me eight bucks
Posted by: sausage on Dec 21, 2007 6:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read George Crile's "Charlie Wilson's War when it can out in '03. The book should be required reading for anybody interested in the prelude
to September 11, 2001.

From what I remember Crile painted Wilson as a idealistic, albeit flawed, Cold Warrior who took Carter National Security AdviserZbigniew Brzezinski's wish to hand the Soviet Union its own Vietnam literally. Of course now, with typical American 20/20 hindsight, it's clear that once the Afghan war was won by the Mujahideen the US government should have stepped in with massive amounts of foreign aid and diplomatic expertise. Either than or we should have let the Soviets win, the world might be a safer place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» So What .... Posted by: gellero
» Say what, gellero? Posted by: LeftWright
How amerika manufactured 'islamofacsists'
Posted by: PakiBoy on Dec 21, 2007 6:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Washington Post investigators reported in 2002 that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.

"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then [i.e., since the violent destruction of the Afghan secular government in the early 1990s] as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books..." -- Washington Post, 23 March 2002

According to the Post the U.S. is now "...wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism."

So the books made up the core curriculum in Afghan schools. And what were the unintended consequences? The Post reports that according to unnamed officials the schoolbooks "steeped a generation in [Islamist] violence."

How could this result have been unintended? Did they expect that giving fundamentalist schoolbooks to schoolchildren would make them moderate Muslims?

Further "Even the Taliban used the American-produced books, though the radical movement scratched out human faces in keeping with its strict fundamentalist code." -- Washington Post, March 23, 2002.
Other than their objections to the human face, the Taliban were perfectly happy with the US-produced primers.

These bad *old* schoolbooks "were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies." -- Washington Post, March 23, 2002)

What about the US government? Have any US congressmen demanded an investigation to find out who in the US government was involved in the production of jihad primers that "steeped a generation in [Islamist] violence"?

No they have not.

See - Washington Post, March 23, 2002, "From U.S., the ABC's Of Jihad; Violent Soviet-Era Textbooks Complicate Afghan Education Efforts."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How Pakistan helped along Posted by: DesertStone
» America LOVES dictators! Posted by: madaha
RE: Julia Roberts and her enormous rabbit teeth
Posted by: DesertStone on Dec 21, 2007 7:05 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see Julia Roberts babbling about the charcater she plays and what a wonderful and gracious woman she was. Julia doesn't really care that these animals have created and fostered decades of war, poverty and death for millions of Afghans and ultimately the world she just wants to look cute at the premier talk about herself on Letterman and kiss the fat rich asses of Texas millionaires. May she and her big ugly teeth burn in hell right along with Tom Hanks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh, come on Hank
Posted by: agathena on Dec 21, 2007 10:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I think of the courage of Ahmad Shah Massoud against Tom Hanks' squirming and weaseling, the contrast is enormous. Massoud warned the US in Paris in the summer of 2001, "You ignore what is happening in Afghanistan at your peril." Did the US listen? No, but bin Laden heard him and marked him for death as part of the 9/11 plot.
For more information on "The Lion," Massoud
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/landincrisis/
Video: Afghanistan Revealed
Take a harrowing journey with author Sebastian Junger and photographer Reza deep into Afghanistan for an in-depth interview with the resistance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud.

For more information on Tom Hanks, check Entertainment Tonight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why do "liberals" keep depending on Hollywood for cash and living up to the libel?
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 21, 2007 6:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article begs that very question. After all, Hollywood could not only care less but is happier about the plight of the working/lower/middle class despite the fact that most Hollywood snobs didn't even complete high school but got to dodge everything just like the neocons dodging Vietnam. By the way, try asking your Democrats how comfortable they really are in allowing Big Media/Entertainment to TRASH the constitution by suing individuals frivolous million dollar lawsuits for even simple file sharing. This is why they aid the GOP in crushing people's rights to privacy all the while shielding bad corporations like AT&T and Halliburton with full "privacy protection".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Melissa Roddy adds to the torment of Afghan people with added anti Afghan propaganda
Posted by: DesertStone on Dec 21, 2007 6:49 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While Hekmatyar may have been all that is claimed it is an outrage for anyone let alone an westerner sitting in the warm comfort of their western home to diminish the brutality of the Soviets against Afghan people. How very righteous of this American woman to have such lofty opinions about a misery she never had to live a day of.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Posted by: DesertStone
» Read Ghost Wars Posted by: Philip Newton
Maybe...
Posted by: PROFPETE on Dec 21, 2007 7:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I still don't get it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Small point
Posted by: Indiosmith on Dec 21, 2007 7:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's n'est çe pas not n'est pas. You mustn't trust your ear when it comes to French.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Small point Posted by: Balanchine
» Wrong Posted by: gellero
» You're not quite right, either Posted by: drcyflowers
love 4 R plan8
Posted by: love R plan8 on Dec 21, 2007 7:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Melissa Roddy: I sincerely hope before you finish your documentary that you do a lot more research. For starters go to PatriotsQuestion911.com where you will find a who's who of military officers, CIA, and government officials who refute the authenticity of the 9/11 Commission's conspiracy theory. On other sites,pilots, scolars, theologians, scientists and even Republicans point out the Commission's inaccuracies. Read the books by architect Richard Gage and theologian David Ray Griffin. If Senate Bill 1959 passes after Christmas, they risk being called terrorists for their opinions and imprisonment in the new Haliburtin-built prisons. Why would they risk that? Because the evidence is so overwhelming that 9/11 was a false flag terrorist event, staged to propel us Americans into endless war and giving up our Constitutional rights. They are trying to warn us to act before the coup is completed. Please take the time to check how many executive orders Bush has made and laws Congress has passed which take away our liberty. If you are too "busy" to read very technical books, I suggest David Ray Griffin's movies "9/11 The Myth and the Reality" and "Let's Get Empirical". Wilson may have been foolish but 9/11 would have happened anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Read "Ghost Wars"
Posted by: Philip Newton on Dec 21, 2007 8:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This author offers an surprisingly cogent and interesting article, especially given its short length.

Grade: B+

For an in-depth and well-written tome on the Afghan wars -- especially concerning the life and death of Massoud and his realations with the other Afghan warlords -- read "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll. Superb book.

Massoud was no saint, but he was a patriot and a man of the people. The Mithridates of Afghanistan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Things really haven't changed that much
Posted by: willymack on Dec 21, 2007 8:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our popular media has always been saturated with politics, ficticious and otherwise. This includes the movies, some of which portrayed Jesse James as some kind of benevolent Robin Hood type. In one particularly egrigious film, Victor Mature portrayed Doc Holliday. For those of you who don't remember Victor Mature, he looked as if he could walk off the movie set and play as linebacker on any NFL team, but there he was playing a sickly, tubercular Doc. Then there were the short films, during times of war, portraying our enemies as subhuman monsters and wildly exagerating the danger they posed. We've ALWAYS bent the truth for entertainment or political purposes. The only difference today is the matter of DEGREE and INTENT. I'm with those who want a REAL investigation of 911 because it's a moral imperative to do so, and instead of doing so, this regime has attempted to cover something up, and has done a sloppy job of it. Aren't you just a teeny bit suspicious of that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden
Posted by: michael098762001 on Dec 21, 2007 8:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excellent book.
On Hekmatyar and Massoud,
http://tinyurl.com/2eojek
http://books.google.com/books

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THIS ISN'T A BIG DEAL
Posted by: olenholm on Dec 21, 2007 8:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most American movie going audiences, especially ones going to see Hanks and Roberts (blech) and most likely ones NOT reading this article, aren't politically sophisticated enough to draw any conclusions about the details of this situation. This isn't that big of a deal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You got that RIGHT! Posted by: sumwoman
» don't be so sure Posted by: PaulC
tom hanks is just an actor
Posted by: olenholm on Dec 21, 2007 8:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
saying lines written by a writer whose words are realized through the work of a director.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good article... but was it really Reagan & Bush's war?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Dec 21, 2007 8:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's the classic photo: 1983, Ronald Reagan welcomes the Afghani freedom fighters to the White House and stages a photo with them with George Washington's portrait in the background.

The Reagan and Carter administrations were the driving force behind the covert support for Afghani "freedom fighters." Covert operations were the hallmark of the Reagan era - in El Salvador, in Nicaragua, in Afghanistan, in Iraq and Iran - and those same people are still in power - Elliot Abrams, the Bush clan, James Baker III, etc.

Trying to fob all that off onto some "independent operator" named Charlie Wilson is a bad joke itself. The fact is that the Saudi government, the Pakistani government, and the U.S. government all worked together to covertly supply troops and weapons to anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan. The U.S. movie business even chipped in to promote the war by producing Rambo III.

Take what Juan Cole had to say about Reagan and the Taliban:

"In fact, of course, Ronald Reagan bears substantial responsibility for September 11. He and his administration were so gung ho to roll back Communism that they funneled billions of dollars to scruffy far rightwing radical Muslim mujahidin in Pakistan and Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. Orrin Hatch even flew to Beijing for Reagan in 1985 to ask the Chinese to pressure Pakistan to allow the US to provide the Mujahidin with ever more sophisticated weaponry. Even the Pakistani military had initially balked at this crazy idea, knowing who the Gulbuddin Hikmatyars and Usama Bin Ladens really were (unlike clueless Reagan, who called them freedom fighters). But the US twisted the Pakistanis’ arms, and they gave in. Likewise, Reagan forced the timid Saudis to match US contributions to the Mujahidin. (And then after Sept. 11 the former Reagan officials who had twisted the arms of the Saudis, like Richard Perle, turned around and blamed Riyadh for spreading radical Muslim ideas!!) It was the CIA that first established terrorist training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan, to hit the leftist government in Kabul. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the camps used by al-Qaeda had been built originally by the Reagan administration.

So, not only is this movie trying to change history and rewrite the past about who received the support, it's also trying to obscure who gave that support.

The same story, of course, applies to Saddam Hussein, who was encouraged to invade Iran by the United States and who received billions in U.S. agricultural loans, freeing up Saddam's oil revenue, which he then used to buy weapons from Italy, West Germany, Britain, and the U.S., via Saudi Arabian and Egyptian cut-outs. He even got military intelligence from the DIA as well as extra arms up through 1989. That's why his 'trial' was such a hush affair and ignored so many of his crimes - the whole story would have revealed extensive U.S. involvement in his crimes.

The cherry on top of all that was the Iran-Contra scandal, in which the covert operations in the Middle East got in bed with the covert operations in Central America in a bid to ignore Congress and continue to promote 'revolution' in NIcaragua. That effort extended to, at the very least, the CIA looking the other way while the Contras raised funds by shipping cocaine into major U.S. cities.

Obviously, the movie business doesn't want to get into all that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Colonel, ret.
Posted by: Spock on Dec 21, 2007 9:19 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've long since begun to wonder if anyone who comments publicly on anything ever knows what he is talking about. "Copasetic?" This is co-pathetic. "Square Root?" This is simplistic to the fourth power. As I've pointed out again and again in my own writing www.judoknighterrant.com (where the reader will learn that - having been its victim - I'm just about the CIA's most relentless critic), speaking and writing publicly includes something called "responsibility." Someone might actually BELIEVE what you say (consider the nut cases who think the Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition). This - and, yes, so is the damned movie - is irresponible twaddle. Sorry, but if anything irritates me more than the opposition's strident bullshit mongering, it's when my side does the same.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Colonel, ret. Posted by: oregoncharles
Roddy needs to go further
Posted by: johnny woods on Dec 21, 2007 9:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Roddy is right to point out the unsavory types the Charlier Wilson-CIA-and ultra rightists supported in Afghanistan But what remains unexplored and unsaid is that the Afghan government was not some sort of externally imposerd lame puppet. They were the most progressive people and organizations in that country, veterans of struggles for mass public education, women's rights, trade unionism and so on.. The USA stuck a Pol Pot/Noriega/Saddam Hussein type named Amin in leadership. The Afghan group that got rid of him were the Good Guys--and Gals--more like the Sandinistas, or the Lumumba group in Congo, and similar CIA targets in Iran and Guatemala. Unfortunately, the dualistic Cold War lens obscured the complex realities to most left forces here. And the Soviets' fiasco showed basically that an occupying army, no matter its intentions, can be bled dry by a well-armed resistance funded by outsiode forces with deep pockets.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: oddy needs to go further Posted by: DesertStone
Disappointed
Posted by: AndreaN on Dec 21, 2007 10:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After reading the book, I was delighted to hear there was a film in the making. How disappointing to read the truth injures an actor's delicate sensibilities such that history is revised. I had been anxious to see the film, and was planning to go today. Thanks to this article, I think I'll pass.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Carter, not the Russians, started the war
Posted by: ahilgart on Dec 21, 2007 10:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before the Russians entered Afghanistan to protect the secular feminist government, we armed the homicidal fundamentalists. And our triumphs were to install the Taliban and create bin Laden.

Reaping What We Have Sown
By David Morris, AlterNet. Posted May 4, 2004.

The seeds of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism were planted in 1979, when Jimmy Carter decided to fight back against the expansion of global communism...

Full story at:
http://www.alternet.org/story/18598/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

old pete
Posted by: old pete on Dec 21, 2007 1:40 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once again, you are leaving out the Israeli connection. Read the book (and Ghost Wars), you might not believe the amount of effort that Wilson put into making Reagan successful in Afghanistan.
Israel made a fortune by selling the CIA Soviet weaponry seized from the Arabs in its wars (to attempt to cover-up the American source of the arms).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» So?? Posted by: gellero
whose bucks?
Posted by: mammamaia on Dec 21, 2007 1:42 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
makes me wonder whose money was invested in this bush-friendly propaganda flick... if we checked out the list of production-funding entities, think we'd find any good ol' boys' oil money in there???... or any names we'd find on a roster of haliburton execs?

sheesh!

love and hugs, maia
www.saysmom.com
for 100% free writing help: maia3maia@hotmail.com

"You must BE the change you wish to see in the world." Gandhi

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ah, the nuance...
Posted by: JMTulip on Dec 21, 2007 8:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"There were seven factions based in Pakistan who were the recipients of American largesse, but about 40 percent of it went to a blood-thirsty, fundamentalist, loudly anti-American bastard named Gulbaddin Hekmatyar."

Gee, could you be any more subtle? When do we get to the part where he ate the baby?

I realize this is an o-ed piece, but seriously, grow up. This isn't a Rambo flick, it's a site that supposedly purports to be engaging in thoughtful political commentary. Labeling people as "blood-thirsty bastards" really does a disservice to anyone reading the piece. And it makes the author look like a petulant child.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

9/11 - at best, is a case of chicken coming home to roast
Posted by: PakiBoy on Dec 21, 2007 9:25 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
at worst, is the "catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" that neocons executed in order to push their imperial agenda.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Geneaology
Posted by: talkville on Dec 21, 2007 11:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"In The Beginning...." was Charlie Wilson, et al:

"Moreover, if this movie succeeds in convincing Americans that the U.S. support went to Ahmad Shah Massoud alone, it will have effectively let the CIA and Wilson off the hook for their contribution to the circumstances leading up to 9/11. During the 1980s, Wilson engineered the appropriation of approximately $3.5 billion to help the Afghans fight the Soviets. According to Milt Bearden, CIA chief of station to Pakistan, Massoud received less than 1 percent of it."

Then...... Blowback, The Great Unraveling, Curveball, etc. etc. etc.

What happens when you train, teach, encourage, arm and organize by reliance on Religious Fundamentalist elan?? You got it: Al Qaida. All they had to do was change the Object.

And the clever Texan is made out a Hero and focus of hagiography. The very meaning of sanity and civilization is up for grabs today. This is no "New American Century"; it's merely the attempted Restoration of much darker ones preceding us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Please study Posted by: talkville
mike nichols dean of satire seminal second city pioneer
Posted by: melindyrose on Dec 22, 2007 9:00 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
geez, grow up and get a sense of humor
you'll get your bill o'reilly minute
peace & love
melinda
ps see "there will be blood"
based on upton sinclair's "OIL!!!"
let me know what you think.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

c.wilson
Posted by: wittler youth on Dec 22, 2007 4:28 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
yep..read the book twice..aint no dirty laundry comming out of hollywood screen writers..shesh..but juli look fine and slutty on letterman plugging the movie..boobs falling out of her blouse like candy kisses...hey hollywood is what it is..shes single with two kids..yah all feel lucky..thats more on the top of your mind than charleys 80s expolits..off topic..the Fisa bill this next jan..thats the real dagger in th' back..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We Don't Learn
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Dec 22, 2007 5:25 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tragically, the US still isn't learning. We are funding and arming various factions, hostile to one another but temporarily allied to us for cash and guns. We're creating, through the slaughter of civilians, torture and forced disappearance, an atmosphere in which extremism thrives and enemies multiply. Thus in Iraq were are replicating both our errors in Afghanistan in the 1980s, and the Soviet Union's.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But Hollywood has ALWAYS re-written history
Posted by: harryf200 on Dec 22, 2007 7:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't understand why anyone should be so surprised by the historical inaccuracies of this film. Hollywood has always re-written history, distorting truths and even telling downright lies just to make the film more attractive to especially US audiences and fill the box offices with $$$s.
An example that has rankled many British audiences is the film U-571, which suggests the German Enigma machine was captured by the US Navy from the German submarine U-571. This is a complete lie. The first complete Enigma machine was actually recovered from the sub U-110 after its capture by the British Royal Navy ship HMS Bulldog.
And look just how many US films has suggested WW2 was won by the US Army. Sure, they played their part but the overwhelming war machine that defeated the Germans was the Russian Red Army who kept the largest part of the German Army so busy on the Eastern Front it allowed the Allies to sneak through the back door of Normandy and open up the Western Front against a German force significantly smaller and less powerful than that being beaten by the Russians.
Then, what about all those cowboy and Indian films? Hollywood has rarely dared to tell the truth of how the new Americans invaded the lands of the indigenous people, the Indians, and ethnically cleans them from their tribal lands and stick them into small reserves.
This Hanks film is nothing but yet another piece of Hollywood disinformation about the true history of events.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Slow down and read carefully Posted by: LeftWright
» RE: Slow down and read carefully Posted by: racetoinfinity
» Ahhh....Grasshopper Posted by: gellero
canadian bear
Posted by: CandianBear on Dec 23, 2007 9:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this whole 9/11 conspiracy is a CIA operation to take all of your attention off the real problems... watching the towers they fell as if they were struck by planes- just watch the tape- building 7- it is a question mark why it fell into itself and it did look like a demolition. But what are we missing by talking about this stuff? Why not talk about the fighters not being scambled or the size of the hole in the pentagon or in the field - where was the engine debris? do we believe titanium encased engines just vapourized? I suspect this entire line of conspircay is a planted story to distract all of us from what we should be really ocncentrating on- the iraq war- the houseing bubble- the falling US $ etc etc-- there are more pressing issues to deal with than this one- table it a mystery and move on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Final Note
Posted by: DesertStone on Dec 24, 2007 6:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On a final not the way the story of Charlie Wilson is being presented is generally repulsive. Millions of Afghan people struggled against the Soviets and died, fighting to save their country. Somehow though, a white American has been named the hero in the struggle of Afghan people against Soviets- hahahah. This is a prime example of the American character. Home of the brave, where a drunken congressman takes the credit for a decades worth of armed conflict from the warmth of his TX office. Yeah really, it wasn’t the Afghan people who braved the rugged terrain and relentlessly fought against oppression by the world’s greatest army it was the white American guy and his bimbo girlfriend. Really what did Charlie Wilson and the Americans do for Afghanistan except use them to fight their enemies? The fact that they turned their backs on a shattered nation after their own enemy was defeated says it all. What do Americans care about Afghanistan unless it is to make poor destitute people fight their wars and suffer and die then turn around and declare themselves the heroes? As a result Afghan people are once again the victims of foreign interlopers and self righteous American wrath. Most Americans so ignorant of the enormous price the Afghan people paid for the safety and well being of overfed Americans now hurl their selfish and misguided rage at the very people who saved them from potential nuclear holocaust. To top things off the Americans once again use Afghanistan to fight their foreign enemies, this time Arab terrorists, and sit back and congratulate themselves as heroes to Afghan people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Final Note Posted by: racetoinfinity
Anther thing unmentioned
Posted by: gourdman on Dec 24, 2007 12:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another unpleasant fact that the movie conveniently omitted is that the US was responsible for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the first place! -- Having waged a covert operation in the late 70s to topple the Russian backed Afghan government and perhaps sucker the Russians in -- which is exactly what came to pass. Satan's sidekick, Zeke Brzezinski, admitted to this in 1998, in 1998 when he was being interviewed by the French publication, "Le Nouvel Observateur." To quote Brzezinski:

"Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war."

>> Counterpunch Article

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And Your point is What?
Posted by: pushytoo on Dec 24, 2007 5:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What makes us believe that there was an alternative to Wilson's motivation? Historically we live in a world in which we want for all what we believe we have for ourselvs and what we often want is either unrealistic or not appropriate to the people for whom we say we want it. We forget that the British, the Russians and now we have all been sucked into a morass of tribalism. The fact that some "good guys" turned out bad or some Congressman became a lobbyist for the very group he/she was trying to help because at the time the help was being given the real belief was that it was the right thing to do is nothing new or surprising. Maybe the movie could be a bit closer to the actual facts but, hay, it is a movie and if it causes us to understand a bit more of the past may be we will start to pay more attention to all of that which goes on in the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So many silent elephants in this room
Posted by: johndoraemi on Dec 25, 2007 3:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, I don't know about the film (I'm not subsidizing any Hollywood propaganda films about the roots of "terror"), but this article does not mention the word "heroin." Hekmatyar, in bed with CIA for decades, is one of the world's biggest opium producers. That could explain a few things that aren't allowed to be talked about in H'Wood films, or apparently at Alternet.

Next, Massoud was assassinated by Pakistani ISI connected suicide bombers two days before 9/11. That's because Massoud would have assumed control of Afghanistan AFTER 9/11, and after the Americans intervened to drive out the Taliban. The American Afghan war was known all summer long, after US officials made threats. This was all part of a very large plan -- the inside job of September 11th, and the Project for a New American Century.

And third, this article makes no mention of the mountains of evidence for US government complicity in the 9/11 attacks, including much evidence that the ISI strings were firmly attached to the White House, and that this attack was clearly allowed to proceed despite so many specific warnings that it has become somewhat of a farce (for thinking people).

Writers who proceed to lecture about the causes of the September 11th attacks, while remaining completely ignorant of the reality of the attacks, do not rate very highly I'm afraid.

John Doraemi Publishes Crimes of the State Blog

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wildbill
Posted by: alternate864 on Dec 25, 2007 6:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
911 was most definitely an inside job! PNAC's new Pearl Harbor event.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dr. Reality
Posted by: jfingers1 on Dec 25, 2007 10:00 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not only is the movie a sham, but Ms. Roddys assessment of the 911 factor in relation to the events in Afghanistan has no basis in fact.
Yes we all know the CIA created 'Al Qaeda' from their computer list base. The CIA along with the US military has been proven to have trained many of these particular operatives and ferried them to various battlefields, most notably the Balkan conflict.
The Mujahadeen became a convenient excuse for what Washington was really after; the energy rich region of the Caspian. Karzai a UNOCAL executive, reigns as puppet for the American Empire to this day. Osama was living in Afghanistan for this reason. The Bin Ladens and Bushes have always been business partners in the energy scheme. Poor Osama with his failing kidneys, became the king of convenience to launch an attack to secure this strategic area. It is basic common sense, which the writer of this piece is lacking.
911 was indeed planned for quite sometime, the International Mafiosi and Israeli Zionistacons patiently waited for their opportunistic time to launch this deception, they have fooled and sacrificed many for the goal of global control and power.
Since Americans do not really grasp history and are easily deceived and brainwashed by the machinations of deceptive journalism or cheap Hollywood anesthetization, the cheap lie of 911 cannot penetrate their skull.
Charlie Wilson was corrupt, his sidekick Gust and the rest of the bush CIA crew, were advancing the real goals of geopolitical and energy control.They are prime examples of the demented Anglo world view which has caused much of humanity great misery.
The events of 911 happening the way they did and the subsequent cover up are statistically impossible.
This piece is another incomplete picture of what was truly relevant about 911 viv a vis the Afghan conflict.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One of the worst movies--ever
Posted by: navy-vet on Dec 26, 2007 10:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don’t waste your money on "Charlie Wilson's War." But of course you won't have any to spend, since those who paid for this film have made sure that U.S. citizens are, thanks to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in debt to the tune of one million dollars per minute. The current and ever-rising grand total has reached ten trillion, requiring that the display board on Times’ Square be replaced, since it can’t accommodate such a large figure.

That’s important news. This movie isn't anything except NeoCon propaganda. I figure it's the bow-shot in a forthcoming cannonade of trashy election year films, destroying the truth on behalf of those who are busily undermining America.

The movie should have been titled "Kill a Commie for Christ." It’s the one and only theme of the film, which praises a lush named Charlie Wilson for (yeah, right) singlehandedly saving the world and bringing down Soviet Communism—which, by the 1980s, anyone with sense could see was collapsing from its own internal corruption, paranoid secrecy and overspending on war (remind you of any other country?). The flick disinters every Cold War cliche, falsehood and propaganda ploy not just once but over and over, ad nauseam.

The subject of the Soviet shock-and-awe bombings, invasion and occupation of Afghanistan (remind you of anything?), and the valiant defense by the Afghani people, which could have made a thoughtful serious film, is milked for phony laughs and cowboy chest-thumping. The film opens like the bioepic "Patton" with ex-Congressman Charlie Wilson walking on stage at the CIA—-or maybe it was Blackwater HQ? He's receiving some sort of award for being a really, truly great killer of Commies.

Charlie’s played by Tom Hanks as a good ol’ boy, although Hanks keeps forgetting his Texas drawl. Charlie’s a boozin’, coke-snortin’, womanizin’, fanny-pinchin’, bed-hoppin’ Bible Belt Texan (remind you of anyone?), whose major contribution to morality seems to be goin’ nekkid with Vegas callgirls, Julia Roberts' Born-Again Commie Killin’ Militia Mom who just loves Jeesus, and his all-Playboy-centerfold office workers. (Who were probably the safest young women in Washington DC, considering the amount of alcohol Congressman Wilson consumed, since I doubt he was capable of bodily activity beyond letting his pants fall to the floor.)

I stopped laughing about ten minutes into the movie. Not only were the jokes tiresome and repetitive, but I began to realize that this was the same smarmy, toothy, giggly, phony "infotainment" delivered by the Beautiful People, a la Faux News on television. There is no history in it. Even Crile’s analysis of the Afghan war and the aftermath of the CIA’s covert operations, which was closer to history than this dumb-ox film, falls far short of the sordid reality that's been so painfully embarrassing, damaging and expensive for our country.

Even the acting smells. Tom Hanks has one facial expression throughout the film; Julia Roberts looks alarmingly like something from a Tim Burton afterlife cartoon; Philip Seymour Hoffman chews the scenery trying in vain to be Jack Black. As for Mike Nichols--shame on you!

We need a movie about the REAL American hero who put a stop to covert cowboy Ramboism--Senator Frank Church.

PS: It's scary that so many blog responses are from True Believers who want everyone to think that Bush&Co plotted and carried out 9/11! I have seen no proof--just a lot of accusations and highly dubious logic. Sadly, this particular "conspiracy" gets the CIA and our Cold War foreign policy (from 1945 onward) off the hook, to satisfy a peculiarly one-sided view the word. The conspiracists seem certain of the stupidity of everyone outside their own infallible knowledge of The Truth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Typical misrepresentation Posted by: brunowe
» 911 and BushCo Posted by: jfingers1
French correction
Posted by: mamaowl on Dec 27, 2007 1:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry to point this out but your French usage should read "n'est-ce pas".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why praise the funding of terrorists?
Posted by: gregorywonderwheel on Dec 29, 2007 6:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for the sanity. I have been yelling at my TV Ever since I have been seeing the TV ads for "Charlie Wilson's War." I can see how Hanks could be involved in this project but I was surprized that Roberts, Nichols, and Sorkin would be in volved. I guess I didn't know how conservative they were bent.

The idea that Charlie Wilson is made into a hero for funding terrorists is so ludicrious that it is the proverbial fact stranger than fiction.

There is something just too cognitively dissonant to accept in a film that purports to be about how a mediocre man rose to greatness by fighting the USSR through paying terrorists. The USA did in Afghanistan to a certainly much greater magnitue exactly what the USA now accuses (without evidence) Iran of doing in Iraq. We call Iran terrorists for giving aid, so why isn't Charlie Wilson and the CIA ranked alongside the Revolutionary Guard as terrorists?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This has what to do with Charlie Wilson's War?
Posted by: TexasJewGirl on Dec 30, 2007 12:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You two have been back and forth for a hundred posts on the 9/11 conspiracy, The topic of the column was the movie Charlie Wilson's War. The column discussed that Hekmatyar and the fact that the movie did not mention him or any of the connections to 9/11 and the terrorist training camps or that Pakistan was giving our money to the worst of the worst that were opening terrorist training camps with our money.

Why not return to the subject at hand and give the conspiracy theories a rest?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hollywood's Whopper
Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com on Jan 8, 2008 12:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have no need to se this blantantly propagandistic and jingoistic movie. Heck, this film would have been suited in Nazi times. Well, after all, is this the best (or worst) we can get from a Hollywood film company? I can understand why this "comedy" is banned in Afghanistan: They know the truth and we don't. You know when times are good: people will blow their money on anything.
Distortions R Us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement