There’s something wrong with our foreign policy?

Joe Klein told everything’s fine. What’s happening!?!? help.

yep, a scary movie coming from people who should know better.

Aaron Sorkin “liberal”? Have you ever seen “The West Wing” circa 2002? The warmongering is bloodcurdling, despite the teddy-bear cuddliness of the dramatis personae.

“They’ll love us when we win.”

Hi, BT!

There’s something wrong with our foreign policy?

No, the theory is absolutely correct. It’s just the execution and the “end game” we keep screwing up.

/sarcasm

Aaron Sorkin “liberal”?

The views of Sorkin and Hanks, and Hollywood generally, would be described as “liberal” by the Villagers and the MSM, which is what my point is. I don’t know if Sorkin is really a liberal. Whatever he is, he obviously buys the Villager CW about foreign policy.

BT,

Great Post. “If this is what progressives and Hollywood thinks of our foreign policy, what’s the conservative view”?

Nothing short of Nuclear Armegeddon would be the NEO-CON view. Afterall, what is the point of having all of those sophisticated weapons if you are not going to use them.

If this is what progressives and Hollywood thinks of our foreign policy, what’s the conservative view?

Nuke the Middle East into a sheet of glass?

My last words before exiting today. SOO glad you wrote about this, BT. I was very disturbed by the fact that aaron and all these liberals put this out. But here’s the thing: i can’t help but have noticed over the years that being a self described liberal does not often translate to having an encompassing political perspective on things, facts, history (or hers). In fact, every time i’ve ever tried to work on a political campaign for a so called liberal candidate, whether managing one or door to door stuff, ( and here i may just have been unlucky in my choices) I’ve always come away disappointed that they, for the most part, were not really interested in either history or the facts of the present. People, no matter their political stripe, seem to have narrow agendas, and it looks like the folks who made this movie do too. although god knows what it is. Most people’s politics makes no sense at all, no common sense that is given the facts. So there you are. Thanks for condemning this slick hollywood propaganda. Why should now be any different than WWII? There is money to be made , and particularly now, people to be cheered up.

People, no matter their political stripe, seem to have narrow agendas, and it looks like the folks who made this movie do too. although god knows what it is.

Is there any reason to think it is anything other than selling tickets?

One point to consider is even though the film makers are liberal, they are still capitalists trying to make a profit.

Yup. Always has been. Now, don’t you feel better?

At least it’s a comforting myth in a Republics-are-not-all-Bush-screw-ups sort of way.

even before i knew the specifics of what charlie wilson’s war was about, the previews just left me cold. i have no desire to see it, tho i’m a big fan of hanks’, roberts’ and nichols’ work.

and now that i know the specifics, i have a hard time wrapping my mind around a goofy comedy about the americans that helped the taliban come into being.

not political by any stretch of the imagination, but better movies to waste your $10 on are sweeney todd, enchanted, i’m not there and dewey cox.

skippy’s review of sweeney todd and i’m not there can be found here. and here’s skippy’s review of walk hard - the dewey cox story as well as a general analysis of the movie parody genre in general, and an addendum post w/comments from my readers, mostly disagreeing w/everything i said.

The Secret Government ~ PBS Bill Moyers

Full 90 minutes at Google Video

OT:

Obama’s campaign is predicting an Iowa win: Link

I am predicting a very close Edwards win. I think HRC will be second and Obama 3rd.

Hope you right.

Interesting. Wonder if George Clooney, Susan Sarrandon, Sean Penn or Tim Robbins would have signed for this flick? Incidentally, I am a fan of Hanks and Roberts. But your points leave me somewhat perplexed, particularly as to Tom Hanks. However, there are times when actors do play roles which seem to run counter to their politics. I wonder what the late actor JT Walsh, a favorite of mine (I am thinking here of his role in “A Few Good Men”)former president of a local chapter of SDS would have to say about this?

Charlie Wilson’s ex-wife was my real estate agent when I moved back to DeeCee from North Carolina in the early eighties. She was very happy to find “the perfect honeymoon cottage on Capitol Hill” for me and the man I dragged outta North Carolina. I always thought that was a funny way for someone once married to Charlie Wilson to view two gentlemen friends seeking housing. But she said it.

Can’t imagine this movie stands on solid moral ground, given its premise, but thanks for questioning it anyway, BT. We are seeing the same argument reprised about America’s War On Irak: great idea, poor execution. It’s the “great idea” part we need to exorcise from our political debate, in my view. Invading sovereign countries because we don’t like their regimes just isn’t the way a superpower in decline should behave — besides, it sets a bad example for the rising hegemons in our midst.

We are also in the process of arming and funding former ‘dead enders, Saddamists, Baathists, the worst of the worst’ in Iraq in order to buy some quiet time for The Decider too.

This policy will surely not bite us in the ass.

-G

a family member who produces fairly big time hollywood flicks, and is, by the way of the jewish persuasion, says the old jewish left is dead in hollywood as a political force. And that you won’t find anything coming out of the hollywood power cabal, (which is primarily controlled by jews), that works against the interests of AIPAC, which are scary. my brain just fries around this one. And I for one was crushed when west wing broadcast their teleplay response to 9/11. After that i knew where they were coming from and was really disappointed. Bring back Max Headroom!

Has anyone noticed how sexist this view of American foreign policy is?

If that’s the word. America is the bad boy lover, who jumps into your bed and goes gangbusters for a couple minutes. Then it’s cigarette, lights out, and America rolls over and goes to sleep.

Foreign nations want to talk. They want to cuddle. Nationbuilding is the nesting instinct, and if America would JUST attend to a foreign nation’s needs, then everything would be wonderful!

The conversation should be, “Who let this MFing lout into my bed?”

We are also in the process of arming and funding former ‘dead enders, Saddamists, Baathists, the worst of the worst’ in Iraq in order to buy some quiet time for The Decider too.

And Afghanistan is a mess. And the CW will be exactly the same, “Well, we had to invade Afghanistan, we just messed it up.”

I liken actors who take on jobs which do not necessarily conform to their tastes or ideology, to lawyers who take on cases in which they find the main characters somewhat unsavory and perhaps suspect. Both labor to do their best.

I saw CWW yesterday. What has to be remembered is that we never went into Afghanistan to help the Afghan people, no matter what anyone says. This was all about fighting the Soviet Union. Period.

If any other country invaded Afghanistan, we wouldn’t have done a thing. So yes, it does show exactly how calculating and single minded the US can be, if you know the story before seeing the film.

It only hints at the blowback caused by our escapade, which is a shame.

It must be obvious by now we need a movie predicated on the moral rightness of blowing up Iran.

LOL! That’s really good.

This movie (”Charlie Wilson) does not seem ‘to come up to’ “Forest Gump” But nevertheless, I will see it.

With all due respect to the story, which had to be told…

Just the scenes with Philip Seymour Hoffman were worth the price of admission. No other living actor could have done both this character AND Capote.

Charlie Wilson was written by the liberal Aaron Sorkin, produced by the liberal Tom Hanks, and comes out of liberal Hollywood. That should mean that the movie is a stinging rebuke of our intervention in Afghanistan, right? Wrong. Despite what a few Reagan administration officials are saying — it celebrates it.

Great. Happy new year everyone. Hear’s to a better one.
I had the misfortune to watch some History Channel type program on Charlie Wilson. There was lots of lauding Charlie and sobbing over poor Charlie. At any rate, I thought it interesting that the only thing that these people (Charlie and associates) had in common was there professed “hate” for Soviets and how some of them just wanted to “murder” soviets. That’s some shaky ground for US foreign policy: hate and murder. Sympathy for the Afghans came as an afterthought: “saving the afghans and the brave mujahedeen”. Noone seemed to question whether escalated war actually made it worse for the regular Afghan.
Don’t know if this was in the movie: The belly dancer story struck me as pure bullocks for so many reasons. Woo wee! a real live Texan belly dancer! As if you need to go far to find a real live belly dancer in the Near East. But then American chauvinism at work, to think a Texan belly dancer would be more skillful than any native.

The views of Sorkin and Hanks, and Hollywood generally, would be described as “liberal” by the Villagers and the MSM, which is what my point is. I don’t know if Sorkin is really a liberal. Whatever he is, he obviously buys the Villager CW about foreign policy.

Right - If this is MSM’s idea of liberal, and hey convince the public of that, which they have, anything further left looks totally wacko. And sorkin is a crackhead alcholic, so not so much with consistent politics, at least not effective ones.

thanks BT

Oh Crap @30. Excuse my horrible spelling.

Got to go and start getting the stuff together for tonights NYear’s party. We’re having a few friends (teacher types) over for a little party. Someone is bringing a couple of recently released DVD movies over. Haven’t a clue to what they are. Stay safe tonight folks. Happiest of New Years to each of you.

lahoma and okk. ;0)

Just the scenes with Philip Seymour Hoffman were worth the price of admission.

I agree wholeheartedly. Again, the film was exceedingly entertaining, and Hoffman was a key part of that.

OT: Joan Walsh of Salon just praised progressive bloggers for not endorsing Democratic candidates in the primaries, gushing that “most are spending their time trying to dampen conflict among hot-headed readers who stridently support one of the Democrats”.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/w...../bloggers/

Less than 24 hours later, Ian Welsh of Agonist strongly endorsed Edwards in the primary, firmly stating:

Edwards should be Democratic nominee because he is the most progressive and electable of the top three candidate and the only one who understands that entrenched interests like the telecoms, banks, credit card issuers, health insurers and oil companies aren’t voluntarily going to make some sort of “bipartisan happy consensus” that costs them billions of dollars and a ton of power, whether doing so saves millions of lives, trillions of dollars and makes the country prosperous and safe or not.

http://agonist.org/ian_welsh/2.....ic_nominee

Maybe Walsh knows something about Presidential politics that I don’t, but I agree with Welsh that it’s high time that a powerful voice for the progressive agenda got seriously fucking strident.

You know the whole Charlie Wilson story reminded me of hearing once that so many Soviets got mired in opium and her*in. I wonder how our soldiers are faring. It scares me. The poor kids.

“but I agree with Welsh that it’s high time that a powerful voice for the progressive agenda got seriously fucking strident.”

yeah, like ralph nader always has been? i’m writing him in… again. unless edwards gets it.

Just remember: “lesser of evils”. It’s trite, but true.

Writing in Nader–or anyone else–in the general election is just pissing in the wind. Same with voting for a third-party candidate.

Gee, I’m sorry to read so many negatives about CWW. Is it possible they are satirizing the situation?

Vote for your country instead of being angry because you didn’t get exactly what you want.

As for the primary I heartily wish Edwards and Dodd luck and good numbers.

Christy said the book was obviously snarky, but I don’t know if that came through in the movie at all, since I didn’t see it.

Anyway call me a party pooper, but I find it hard to laugh at anything that contributed to the horrible situation in Afghanistan.

The Book, CWW, really sucked. I haven’t seen the movie. I got sucked into an on-line discussion of the book and movie the other day at another blog. Boy, did I get jumped. Then, the same thing happened at yet another blog. Why do people believe this Scoop Jacksonesque version of the mid-70s to late 80s?

As I commented at one of the other places:

Back through the 70s, I read a lot about the USSR. Current affairs and history, mostly dealing with musical life there. Between knowledge from that and talking to friends who had worked or studied there, I felt that the USSR was already teetering close to the edge before the mid-70s.

Hedrick Smith’s _The Russians_ came out in 1975, four years before the Afghan invasion, during the middle of the short Ford administration. The book fairly clearly describes the already existing structural flaws that led to the collapse of the USSR fourteen years later.

It is possible that by forcing the Soviet government to spend more on defensive and counter-offensive weapons during the 1980s the US sped the inevitable along, but I doubt we’ll ever know.

don’t go there. not with me. i spent years doing the lesser thing and i sleep better voting my conscience. i realize others aren’t in agreement with me, and that’s fine. but don’t ask me to buy the party line anymore. they have betrayed us, at least they have me, and have to live with myself. i vote for the person i think would be the best leader ina time when we desperately need real leaders. it is the other folks who need to do the same, not I who need to compromise my values and follow a herd. respectfully, i’ll vote my conscience.

happy new year

I agree. Not a Nader voter myself. I respect people who are. *ducking*

what does ‘ducking’ mean?

It’s not bad, as a movie. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is amazing, as always. Hanks is good, but no, he never did get the accent down. The message of the film is, gee we meant well, too bad it didn’t work out quite like we wanted.

There’s no follow through to the bitter end, which is what we and the middle east are living right now.

A love letter to aggressive imperialism? CWW is a “be careful what you wish for” admonition not to think we can know the best thing to do in every situation. That’s so explicit at the end of the film that I cannot believe anyone could miss it. That award ceremony that appears to anoint the Tom Hanks character at the end of the film? It’s *ironic* — he already knows, at that early point in the game, that he doesn’t deserve it.

My review of the film is here: http://www.flickfilosopher.com.....eview.html . I’m a liberal and a professional film critic not beholden to any corporation, and someone who believes that no amount of profit motive can be more important that speaking the truth as you see it.

oh duh sorry mui1, time for me to go to the quiet corner.

don’t go there. not with me.

I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean.

I have never suggested that anyone vote against their conscience.

Yes, but it’s a gentle nudge, not the smack upside the head the US population needs.

No I mean myself. I run for duck and cover when I defend Nader voters. Don’t go to a quiet corner. Everyone should vote their conscience. Think what a better congress we would have if that were the case.

I enjoyed it, particularly the scene between Hoffman & Hanks in Wilson’s office (wished there was a replay for all the repartee), but it was uncritical of Wilson’s motives, and Julia Roberts wasn’t up to the right-wing Texas rich-bitch role. Jane Fonda could have done that perfectly.

I’ll note the inclusion of the zen-master theme of “Only time will tell” which gives liberals a way to feel good while watching a clever movie whose premise might otherwise make them squirm. It’s as close as Hollywood will ever come to suggesting that Reagan bears responsibility for the birth of the mujahadeen.

Now if we can get anyone to admit that Ike triggered the eventual Iranian revolution by ousting Mossedegh, then we’d have two Republican blunders causing the two most militant Islamic movements of today. Whooda thunkit?

What I liked best about the movie, though, is that it was short (97 minutes). If you can’t make your point by then, re-edit the damn thing.

but voting your conscience is pissing in the wind? i don’t believe that. Particularly when, given the documented voting ‘irregularities’ these days, not to mention a supreme court that will overturn any election that doesn’t suit its majority, a party vote is likely to be counted incorrectly anyway.

ok , this just isn’t my day. there’s a foot of snow outside and apparently in my head as well.

Little secret: I avoid any Hanks movie. I can’t stand the canned appeal, the cliches etc. etc. That has made dating situations difficult, because there aren’t very many blockbuster type movies that I can sit through. I could of course sleep, but . . .

My best wishes for Happy New Year to all the pups.

I’m off to see the wizard, the wonderful wizard of pain.

I’m off to see the wizard, the wonderful wizard of pain.

Nooo… Not the Dentist… Root canal time?

PhysioProf

Think it’s not a good idea to express opinions about motivations behind others’ voting ethics.

Perhaps it would be better just to express your own. For example, you could say that you prefer to vote for a party candidate because …. without denigrating kittykitty by saying “anyone who votes for a third party is blah blah blah …

Tom hanks gives me the creeps. always has.

love hoffman though.

hey kittykitty: saw ya got busted in another thread. happened to me, too. i’m not exactly sure what the rules are but I try to go by waht the posters say. if they can say…… oh, cocksucker, for example… then we can too, i figger. just my rule of thumb. one cdomment was very true–some stuff doesn’t translate as you intended when it’s in print and read by a buncha people who don’t know ya.

now, on that lesser of two evils, thing, my conscience is clear by doing it. so far, anyway. in fact, i don’t think I’ve ever really felt that way. Not always happy, but…………

I’m with you all the way on that.

Rent “The Blues Brothers”.

Oh horsefeathers - the film is satirical and simply wonderful. See for yourself sooner than later.

Woo Hoo! Jane Hamsher is over at HuffPo.

thanks,

Think it’s not a good idea to express opinions about motivations behind others’ voting ethics.

Yes, I agree completely. I was only commenting on the practical effects of voting in particular ways, not on underlying motivations or ethics.

On CWW, I’ve been advised to see it one day, then see Kite Runner the next day. Seeing both in sequence solves the problem of the consequences of U.S. actions.

Back in the 80’s I hosted a series of radio programs with experts on Afghanistan and South Asia about the situation there. I asked some hard questions (the same ones I would ask about regional conflicts anywhere…particularly those in Central America and Africa). Who precisely were these people we were supporting? We’re they going to end feudalism, improve the status of women, improve educational opportunities, healthcare? Where did they sit in terms of actually providing Democracy and Constitutional rights?

Most of the responses were that the former monarchy was likely far better at moving toward these things, but that none of the mujahideen groups were going to reinstate the King. None were likely to stop the export of Heroin, in fact many were producers of opium. And many of the groups were already known to be hard-core misogynistic regressive Islamist zealots.

These folks were not exactly Nelson Mandela or Mohandas Gandhi!

And we were supporting the military regime in Pakistan (and the ISI) because they were the ones training and supplying the mujahideen…they were the conduits. So we were supporting groups in Pakistan that were suppressing Democracy and human rights there because we needed THEM to supply equally vile secondary mercenaries in Afghanistan. We already knew the ISI was behind the terrorist attacks in Kashmir. So supplying weapons to the majahideen was tantamount to supporting the Kashmiri militants. And many of these weapons went on the Black Market.

All of that was already known when Charlie Wilson’s War was occurring.

And although the Soviets had clearly played a role in triggering the wars that started the refugee problem, the support of the militants exacerbated the issue to create the millions on the border.

I had this dentist who was brutal. He would get all visibly angry and more forceful as he described the dangers of not flossing regularly etc.

Good luck, Busted! I’m sending calm, tooth numbing thoughts your way.

Bless you Frank!

for a lighthearted start to the year, rent ‘Paris, je t’aime’ if you haven’t seen it yet. LUV is all you need. really. well, that and …..

when i was a kid, i had a dentist who used to waddle, had popeye forearms and looked like a gorilla. i think he enjoyed pulling teeth.

I hate flossing and do it much less frequently than my periodontist tells me to. And it is obvious to him when he examines my teeth and gums exactly how frequently I do it.

I recently started using a Phillips SonicAire ultrasonic toothbrush, and my periodontist thinks I am flossing more than I am. Assuming that his perception of how frequently I floss is a reasonable proxy for how healthy he thinks my teeth and gums are, I conclude that the ultrasonic toothbrush really works well.

i dunno what i’m doin’ tonight. probbaly watchin’ nickelodean and watchin’ Times Square. might stop in @ late night for awhile. but if I miss any of you, have a good new year’s.

A lighted hearted romp about support for the mujahedeen and subsequently the destruction of Afghanistan? Sounds like Hitler in Springtime.

But we had to support all these terrible people because the alternative was worse. /snark

and by the by, pissing in the wind is a particularly messy affair for a woman. not a nice visual. but i can take it. ga- head, as we used to say in jersey.
no hard feelings, Prof.

While my dentist was yelling at me, his wife would hum showtunes.

i used to say ga-head and lotsa other things when i was in jersey that i get made fun of for sayin’ now.

Sounds like you found the holy grail of appeasing dentists.

Cool. I’m from Jersey and I still act and sound like it. It elicits some interesting reactions in faculty meetings.

that’s funny.

Nah. The real holy grail is flossing twice a day.

Nah guh hapn.

we gotta lotta ex-Jersey people here.

What exits?

S’true.

Don’t gimme that. You serious?

i know what i’m doing tonight….. drinking a bottle of bubbly with my (of age) daughter, (the guys are stuck elsewhere) , maybe a walk through a sublimely beautiful snowfall here in maine in the moonlight if the clouds clear, and watching the heinous season two of West Wing! but with a jaundiced eye, celebrating the fact that we’re all still here, and that, as Scarlett once said, “Tomorrow IS another day.”.

blessings on all

that was a reply to the which exit question.

My dad was a dentist. In the 1950s once a week he used to bring home my favorite comic (Uncle Scrooge) and my favorite toy — a vial of mercury. My wife says that explains everything.

ok *ducking*… princeton, exit 10.

Thanks for the idea of going for a walk in the snow. I just went out for 1-1/2 hours walking the roads looking at the woods & houses in the fresh snow (only 2″, but it stuck). But it would be nice to go out again after dark, in the fields & woods, not the roads this time.

Now THAT is FUNNY!

What highways?

princeton? very impressive. kearny here. 15W. POarkway 147-AorB. i forget. home of satriale’s pork store.

yeah, but i was born in montclair, so….

My son used to ask that Q to every NJer he rode up on the lift at Hunter Mountain. Almost every single one answered with a number.

you grow up there? Montclair or Upper Montclair?

i really miss the trenton farmers market. been in maine 15 years now. thinkin about NM.

NJT: 14. GSP: 141.

nah, grew up all over the country from CA to TX to DC. no, not military, just nuts. went to HS in princeton, family still there.

Thank you all for specifying your exits. The non-NJers now understand the joke.

Yeah. But I think some people think NJ places don’t have names.

I’m with family tonight. I usually grill the New Year steaks on the barbecue, although last year they went up in a huge conflagration due to my inattention while “freshening my drink”. Maybe I’ll let my brother-in-law incinerate them this year.

That around Westfield? Cranford? Union? Am I getting warm?

wicked funny, prof.

jersey people very smart, it’s the water.

People remembered that? I don’t see why a small incident like that should ruin a tradition.

M.T.

I’ve noticed since I moved that for many of us in NJ, “fuckin”
was the defualt adjective. i haven’t found that to be the case here.

Molly Ivins used to like Charlie wilson, more as an example of simple-minded Texas ploitician. She never saw him as a mover and a shaker. If that is how the movie portrays him, it may not be entirely non-fiction.
Said that his comment on hiring secretaries was “You can always teach ‘em typing. You can’t teach big tits.” He was just another Texas Good Ole Boy. and not much else.

True dat! Duh wuda’s gud!

?? Sorry. Don’t remember. M.T., hmmmm.

the italian girls from trenton are fond of ‘frreakin’. keeps them from havin to go to confession.

You’re fucking kidding, right? If you can search for my comments here at FDL–and if you look on other blogs where PhysioProf comments–you will see