Hollywood Liberals: all the history that’s convenient to observe!
In his book, “Ronald Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime,” Lou Cannon notes how Reagan “expressed revulsion of the brutal destruction of Afghan villages and such Soviet policies as the scattering of mines disguised as toys that killed and maimed Afghan children.” He did not need much convincing to aid the Afghan resistance.
Cannon credits Undersecretary of Defense Fred Ikle and CIA Director William Casey with allaying any concern that providing Stinger missiles to the mujahadeen might lead to the missiles’ capture and copying by the Soviets. Also involved, says Cannon, was a bipartisan coalition “led by Texas Democrat Charlie Wilson in the House and New Hampshire Republican Gordon Humphrey in the Senate.”
So you have at least five players, including Reagan, involved — four of them Republican conservatives. Ikle notes: “Senior people in the Reagan administration, the president, Bill Casey, (Defense Secretary Caspar) Weinberger and their aides deserve credit for the successful Afghan covert action program, not just Charlie Wilson.” So guess which one Hollywood makes a movie about?
I think it’s a rhetorical question.
To be fair, the movie doesn’t mention Jimmy Carter either. It was his naivete about Communist expansion that led the Soviets to invade Afghanistan in the first place. Had Reagan not beaten Carter in 1980 there would have been no Stingers and no victory in the Cold War.
But don’t expect a movie about Reagan’s victory over communism or Carter’s surrender to it.
Mark my words: In ten years, Hollywood will credit Harry Reid with winning Iraq.
Take a look at pictures of Casey, Ikle, and Weinberger, then ask yourself ‘why did Hollywood choose to make a movie about Charlie Wilson’. Would you rather see a movie about some really boring old guys or a hard drinking philandering Texan? An old guy munching on jelly beans or strippers, hot tubs, and cocaine – which films better?
A fair point.
And “Saving Private Ryan” would have been much better if they’d set the whole thing at a London gentleman’s club!
Fer goodness’ sake, RickDFL — Reagan WAS a movie star.
Terry:
Hollywood is full of people who “WERE” movie stars and who no longer appear in movies.
I dunno. I think Reagan’s Brandenburg Gate speech – and the drama leading up to it, the arguments between the State Department and his speechwriters and the President – would, in the hands of someone like an Aaron Sorkin (assuming Sorking would portray any non-fiction Republican fairly), someone who can make wonkery compelling – would make a great bit of drama.
For those of us who don’t need strippers and hot tubs to hold our interest, anyway 😉
First – Check your Lou Cannon p.694-695, there was no debate about giving the speech or in calling for the Russians to “tear down this wall”.
Second – If you want to make a movie about debates between the State and Defense departments over nuclear weapons disarmament and limitation treaties, go ahead. Please do not be surprised if the best business people in American (i.e. Hollywood producers) do no line up to give you their money.
RickDFL said:
“the best business people in America (i.e. Hollywood producers)”
And you complain about others and their lack of “basic” fact checking? You are one funny guy, RickDFL!
Pingback: Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » Reagan’s Birthday