Looks like our writer here is suffering from a bout of Bush Derangement Syndrome -- "Texans are often portrayed as being larger than life (those who come from New Haven by way of Texas don't count)". One of the key symptions is bringing negative comments about Bush into discussions where they have no relevance.

This Texan had as much with what happened in Afghanistan as Reagan with the fall of the USSR, they were there and were used as a front; neither would have been able to conceive or have the intellect to envision such an outcome. long before that and the “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Bush (Doonesbury’s Phantom) as head of the CIA Nov75 -Jan77 in a visit to the Khyber Pass couldn’t control his excitement as being on-the-know to what to become, declared it “the Gate to Russia”. in 1990 he does the same and declares the cold war won and the beginning of the economic war (against Europe in N. Africa).

www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

Was a suicide bomber taking out the whole team. Including the cute ones. But Hollywood determined that was too downbeat. And, the producers - a bunch of Saudi bankers didn't like that. I don't see Jamie Foxx agreeing to be killed either. The man has a mountain sized ego. Anyway - I'm sure Salon's revisionist version of this movie here would have been Charlie Wilson gets caught with a gay hooker. The administration fails. Soviets take over Afghanistan once and for all, global warming is ended before it starts, gas now costs 3 cents a gallon, the minimum wage is $1500/hr. Weed is not only legal it's required. The President of the US is a Muslim lesbian earth mother who lives on the moon.

Once more, it's time for Xanaxdoodle Harumphman wondering if review content is determined by advertising, and showing how little he knows. Yes, Xan, it's all a conspiracy.

Wise up.Advertising is bought and space set aside far, far before copy is usually in. This could easily have been accompanying a pan. But that would leave our Xenodiddle without two cents to throw in and wonder -- just wonder mind you -- if there's something not quite right going on here.

It's a tune you've played before, as tonedeafly as here. Either raise it with Salon and get an answer if you're voicing a suspicion or shut up.

The rest of the world (particularly south asian countries) has known all along why and how the Taliban gained power in the 1st place...where would they have gotten so much money and support if it wasn't for US $$$$$$ pumping them in the 80s! Thanks, guys, for ruining this region for 2 decades and now pretending the Taliban are some kind of new 'evil' that American politics isn't responsible for initiating.

Glad this movie is at least addressing their origin, unlike US network news.

I know little about this movie, "Charlie Wilson's War." So here I am, reading Stephanie Zacharek's text about the quality of the film.

I look to my right. There's a box advertisement for the movie. On the left is a long, thin advertisement for the movie. Then I click to page 2 -- at the top of that page is a horizontal ad for the movie.

I must say, it is more than a little distracting to read a review for a film that is literally surrounded by advertisements for the same film. It makes a guy wonder, "Would these ads be here if Stephanie Zacharek didn't like the film?"

I am still wondering.

So now it was the US who saved the Soviets arse in WWII? Things like the Battle of Kursk must have been fought by valiant American GIs, since clearly a couple of obsolete planes rented under the land lease agreements must clearly trump the contribution to the war effort of the close to 10 million Russian soldiers killed during WW2.

Some times the ignorance that justifies the mind blowing levels of self entitlement of some people can leave one speechless... even if it was as a sort of half arsed red herring argument...

at a time when the world at large already thinks of us as "cowboys" in the worst way.

Throwing 3 billion dollars to the mujahadin is not chicken feed .. and as far as I can tell humanitarian aid was already implemented from many sources -- yes, Afghanistan was a mess in many many ways -- however, there's no indication we were more than remotely interested in the country or its people ... as evidenced by our walking away, totally and completely. Our interest prior to 09/11 was, seemingly, primarily War on Drugs related poppy eradication.

American intervention or adventurism has a long and sordid history ...sometimes it's done illegally by a shadow government (Iran/Contra), sometimes it's done illegally by our multinationals and their willingness to bribe and use their private armys, sometimes we have these odd "wars" against countries with no airforce, no tanks, no real army to speak of ...

Particularly after our 2002 "liberation" of Afghanistan and our 2003 "liberation" of Iraq... both cases badly done, under manned, under funded, FEIGNING innocence as to the "whole political" part of this story border of craven exploitation of a disaster in which lots of real people DIED (oh, and are still dying).

Yes, Hanks needs a "juicy part" ... he's at an awkward age as is Roberts ... when the Golden Globe nominations were announced for a movie almost no one had seen much less reviewed, it was obvious that money talks.

Someone should have told Hanks, "no" ...

The story might have been told as a VERY political, VERY DARK story ... Charlie Wilson being something of a civilian Ollie North, this person operating WITHIN the law, and getting old ST. Ronnie seal of approval.

The Taliban came to power because they were the only force that actually delivered on promises and paid for security and safety of trucks necessary for commerce and they were honest (unlike those who abandoned convoys and/or stole their contents).

If we gave $3 billion, I gotta wonder how much the Saudi "contribution" totaled, in addition to all those self-financed Saudi cowboys like bin Laden.