Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers

“The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a tragic event for Pakistan and for democracy in Pakistan. Her murderers must be brought to justice and Pakistan must continue the path back to democracy and the rule of law. Her death is a reminder that terrorism anywhere — whether in New York, London, Tel-Aviv or Rawalpindi — is an enemy of freedom. We must redouble our efforts to win the Terrorists’ War on Us.”

“I am deeply troubled by the news accounts this morning of Pakistani opposition leader and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto’s assassination in a suicide attack. This is devastating news for the people of Pakistan, and my prayers go out to them as we follow developments regarding this dire situation.

”The terrible violence surrounding Pakistan’s upcoming election stands in stark contrast to the peaceful transition of power that we embrace in our country through our Constitution. On this sad day, we are reminded that while our democracy has flaws, it stands as a shining beacon of hope for nations and people around the world who seek peace and opportunity through self-government.”

"We are still learning the details of today's tragic events in Pakistan, but this is a stark reminder that America must not only stay on high alert, but remain actively engaged across the globe. Pakistan has long been a key part in the war against extremism and radical jihadists. For those who think Iraq is the sole front in the War on Terror, one must look no further than what has happened today. America must show its commitment to stand with all moderate forces across the Islamic world and together face the defining challenge of our generation – the struggle against violent, radical jihadists.

"At this difficult time, our thoughts and prayers go to the family of Benazir Bhutto, and to all the people of Pakistan who are fighting against extremist forces that would commit such heinous acts as the whole world has witnessed today."

McCain, in a statement, said the death of Bhutto "underscores yet again the grave dangers we face in the world today and particularly in countries like Pakistan, where the forces of moderation are arrayed in a fierce battle against those who embrace violent Islamic extremism.

"Given Pakistan's strategic location, the international terrorist groups that operate from its soil, and its nuclear arsenal, the future of that country has deep implications for the security of the United States and its allies. America must stand on the right side of this ongoing struggle," he said, noting that he has made numerous visits to Pakistan.

"I am shocked and saddened by the death of Benazir Bhutto in this terrorist atrocity. She was a respected and resilient advocate for the democratic aspirations of the Pakistani people. We join with them in mourning her loss, and stand with them in their quest for democracy and against the terrorists who threaten the common security of the world."

"I am profoundly saddened and outraged by the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, a leader of tremendous political and personal courage. I came to know Mrs. Bhutto over many years, during her tenures as Prime Minister and during her years in exile. Mrs. Bhutto's concern for her country, and her family, propelled her to risk her life on behalf of the Pakistani people. She returned to Pakistan to fight for democracy despite threats and previous attempts on her life and now she has made the ultimate sacrifice. Her death is a tragedy for her country and a terrible reminder of the work that remains to bring peace, stability, and hope to regions of the globe too often paralyzed by fear, hatred, and violence.

"Let us pray that her legacy will be a brighter, more hopeful future for the people she loved and the country she served. My family and I extend our condolences and deepest sympathies to the victims and their families and to the people of Pakistan."

“The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a tragic event for Pakistan and for democracy in Pakistan.  Her murderers must be brought to justice and Pakistan must continue the path back to democracy and the rule of law.  Her death is a reminder that terrorism anywhere -- whether in New York, London, Tel-Aviv or Rawalpindi -- is an enemy of freedom.  We must redouble our efforts to win the Terrorists’ War on Us.”

“At 6:16 p.m. she expired,” said Wasif Ali Khan, a member of Ms. Bhutto’s party who was at Rawalpindi General Hospital where she was taken after the attack, according to The Associated Press.

Hundreds of supporters had gathered at the rally, which was being held at Liaqut Bagh, a park that is a common venue for political rallies and speeches, in Rawalpindi, the garrison city adjacent to the capital.

Amid the confusion after the explosion, the site was littered with pools of blood. Shoes and caps of party workers were lying on the asphalt, and shards of glass were strewn about the ground.

Farah Ispahani, a party official from Ms. Bhutto’s party, said: “It is too soon to confirm the number of dead from the party’s side. Private television channels are reporting 20 dead.” Television channels were also quoting police sources as saying that at least 14 people were dead.

The latest bombing was the second outbreak of political violence in Pakistan today. Earlier, gunmen opened fire on supporters of another former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, from an office of the party that supports President Musharraf, killing four Sharif supporters, police said.

Mr Sharif was several kilometres away from the shooting and was on his way to Rawalpindi after attending a rally.

The unusual calm at the site on early Wednesday evening, broken by a youth playing on a guitar with a singing partner in what they called a training session, contrasted with the hustle and bustle of election in the nearby city where Bhutto’s imposing picture was on almost every election banner or poster of PPP candidates for the city’s three National Assembly and five Punjab assembly seats to be contested on Jan 8 by all the three major parties, which include the previous ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Q (PML-Q) and Pakistan Muslim-N (PML-N).

Riaz Malik, of the opposition Pakistan Movement for Justice party (Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf), warned: "The impact will be that Pakistan is in more turmoil - it will be the start of civil war in Pakistan.

"There is a very real danger of civil war in Pakistan."

He said that while suspicion was likely to fall on insurgent groups based in the northern tribal areas near the Afghan border, the killing was bound to increase dissatisfaction with the regime of President Pervez Musharraf.

"There will be a lot of fingers pointed at the government," he said.

General Zia-ul-Haq was killed in a plane crash in 1988 and in December of that year Ms Bhutto became Prime Minister at the age of 35.

But by 1990 her administration was over amid charges of corruption and Zia's protege Nawaz Sharif took over the reins of power.

However, Ms Bhutto's political career was far from over. She returned as Prime Minister in 1993 only to fall from power again in 1996 amid more corruption scandals.

More than a decade of exile - some of it spent in London - was to follow before she returned to Pakistan in autumn this year to prepare for elections in 2008. More than 130 people were killed and around 450 injured in a suicide bomb attack in October 2007 while Ms Bhutto was en route to a rally in Karachi. She was unhurt.

She said of her life:

"I didn't choose this life, it chose me,'' Bhutto wrote in the preface to the second edition of her autobiography, Daughter of the East, in April 2007. ``Born in Pakistan, my life mirrors its turbulence, its tragedies and its triumphs. Pakistan is no ordinary country. And mine has been no ordinary life.''

Pakistan is at a crossroads. We citizens are faced with a decisive choice this January 8th, election day. We can turn our backs on the years of dictatorship, fundamentalism, and economic decline. The Pakistan People's Party is ready to lead our beloved country into a brighter future of prosperity, peace, and security. For you and for our country's future, I am ready to lead.

While al Qaeda is considered by the U.S. to be a likely suspect in the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Banazir Bhutto, U.S. intelligence officials say they cannot confirm an initial claim of responsibility for the attack, supposedly from an al Qaeda leader in Afghanistan.   

An obscure Italian Web site said Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, al Qaeda's commander in Afghanistan, told its reporter in a phone call, "We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahedeen."

It said the decision to assassinate Bhutto was made by al Qaeda's No. 2 leader, Ayman al Zawahri in October. Before joining Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, Zawahri was imprisoned in Egypt for his role in the assassination of then-Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.

McCain's return from oblivion also suggests a personal determination that was demonstrated during six years of torture and solitary confinement in a communist prison.

With Iowa Caucuses only one week away, the latest poll from ARG (American Research Group) delivered huge surprises for both Republicans and Democrats. 

On the Democratic side, a tight-as-a-tick three way race (between Hillary, Obama and Edwards) has turned into a Clinton blow-out: the survey of 600 likely Democratic caucus goers (completed on December 23^rd) showed Hillary with a commanding 34%, to Edwards’ 20% and Obama’s disappointing 19%. If she wins Iowa with that sort of margin (after the relentless focus on the state by her two rivals) she will wrap up the nomination for all intents and purposes, and become unstoppable in other early primaries. 

Meanwhile, as the Democrats watch the New York senator reasserting her status as clear front-runner, the Republican field looks more muddled than ever before. In the previous survey, Mike Huckabee held a substantial 11% lead over his chief opponent Mitt Romney in a two-man race that left their rivals far behind. The new ARG poll (surveying 600 likely Republican caucus goers) shows erosion in Huckabee’s support along with sudden and unexpected strength from John McCain --a candidate who had written off Iowa several months ago and devoted no visible time or money to the Hawkeye state. For the first time, the GOP contest in Iowa looks like a startlingly close three-way battle, with 23% for Huckabee, 21% for Romney, and 17% for McCain. When combined with all the recent polls from New Hampshire – which show the Arizona senator either tied for the lead with Romney or running a close second  – the new Iowa numbers reflect undeniable momentum for a candidate whose campaign a few weeks ago looked disorganized, moribund, under-funded and irrelevant. 

What’s behind McCain’s Big Mo?  

Two factors figure most prominently:  

1)      Negative advertising and nasty attacks have damaged his principal competitors. Three weeks ago, Mitt Romney began unleashing a series of slashing attacks against Iowa front-runner Mike Huckabee, focusing on the former Arkansas governor’s “record” on illegal immigrants (Huckabee once supported an unsuccessful drive to allow children brought to Arkansas illegally to compete with their classmates for university scholarships), and clemency for criminals (he generated intense controversy with his pardons and commutations for serious lawbreakers). Romney’s negativity produced predictable results--: driving down Huckabee’s numbers without winning new fans for Mitt. In multi-candidate contests, attacks often damage both the target of the assaults and their initiator, benefiting other contenders. In Iowa, some potential caucus goers may feel weary and wary of the nasty tone of the campaign, feeling disgusted with both Romney and Huckabee (despite the fact that the former Arkansas governor has tried for the most part to maintain a positive approach). McCain, by contrast, not only looks like he’s above the battle, but absent from it – stirring up little or no controversy in the state because he’s not competing. In the same way, prior sniping between Mitt and Rudy (remember the cringe-inducing exchange about “sanctuary city” vs. “sanctuary mansion”?) helped fuel Huckabee’s rise several weeks ago. A candidate who roughs up his opponent may indeed damage his rival (as Romney apparently has damaged Huckabee) but in the process he makes himself look desperate and un-Presidential – especially when he’s delivering the attacks in person, rather than using surrogates. 

2)      In the last week before the caucuses, voters are finally taking a serious look at which candidate represents the most plausible commander-in-chief. McCain’s biggest advantage in Iowa, New Hampshire and across the country involves his military background, personal heroism in Vietnam, and courageous consistency concerning the Iraq War. The unmistakable success of the surge (even Harry Reid now admits that the new policy has delivered big time military progress) validates McCain’s leadership and underlines his expertise on defense and foreign policy. A month before making up their minds, citizens may cast about for a “fresh face” or an “agent of change,” but when they face a fateful decision on caucus night or primary day they generally prefer a president who’s ready to lead the ongoing war on Islamo-Nazi terror from day one. This factor undoubtedly helps to explain Hillary’s sudden rise in Iowa – as pathetic as her national security credentials may seem to her critics, she’s clearly more prepared to take command in the Oval Office than Obama or Edwards. By the same token, it’s vastly easier to imagine McCain leading our military than Huckabee or Romney. Even though Mitt earns points as a successful business executive, his slick leadership of the Winter Olympics can’t compare with McCain’s history as a combat veteran and long-time Congressional leader on military issues and strategy. If his rivals ever wanted to undermine Romney’s defense policy credibility, they need only fashion a TV ad replaying one of Mitt’s major gaffes from the debates: asked about the President’s authority to unleash a strike against Iran, the former governor suggested that his first priority would be to meet with his lawyers. McCain is unlikely to turn negative at this stage in the campaign and to recall that disquieting interchange (since the Arizona solon has gained so much from his dignified, grown-up, above-the-skirmish posture). But an increasingly desperate Giuliani might well challenge Romney’s preparation for confronting our enemies (Rudy’s new slogan – “Tested. Ready. Now.”—seeks to re-focus voter attention on his own admirable record of fighting crime and confronting terrorism). 

Despite the powerful factors behind John McCain’s new found strength, it’s still unlikely that he could actually win the Iowa Caucuses. He boasts only a flimsy, rudimentary organization in the Hawkeye State, while Huckabee and (especially) Romney should fare much better in the “ground game” that may determine victory. Both former governors boast the manpower strength to overcome the challenge of dragging their people out of the comfort of home on a cold Thursday night (next Thursday, as a matter of fact) to spend significant time in a neighbor’s living room. 

Nevertheless, one more joker in the deck might yet assist McCain at the last minute. Under caucus rules, if a candidate draws less than 15% of the participants in any local neighborhood, the votes won’t register for him and his supporters get the chance to support their second choice. In the latest poll, Rudy Giuliani runs fourth and pulls 14% in Iowa-- meaning that in many precincts he’ll win support, but not enough to allow the votes to go to him. If Giuliani regularly finishes out of the running in local caucuses with, say 6% to 14%, then his voters can easily decide the outcome. For several reasons, Rudy backers should prove far more willing to throw their support to McCain than to Huckabee or Romney. For one thing, Giuliani voters will likely view terrorism and military strength as their chief concerns—focusing on issues that constitute the very heart of McCain’s appeal. Moreover, people who are drawn to Rudy won’t likely be swayed by the social issues that animate Huckabee’s legions, or the bombastic hard-line on immigration that’s been a big focus of the Romney campaign in Iowa. Even if McCain makes no further progress in statewide polls – remaining just behind the frontrunners (with 17% to their 23% and 21%, respectively) he could plausibly win the Iowa caucuses, or at least finish a strong second, by winning second-choice votes from Rudy’s backers. Either way, he’d get a powerful boost for New Hampshire (just five days after the caucuses) and beyond. 

With just seven days to go, the race remains shockingly fluid and unpredictable. If Romney wins his twin wars (Iowa and New Hampshire) against his two challengers (Huckabee and McCain) he’ll be tough to beat for the nomination—and could cruise to victory as a lavishly well-funded, magnetically mediagenic golden boy candidate. If, on the other hand, he loses both early states (despite his prodigious investment of time and money) he looks instead like a golden turkey and he’s probably through. On the other hand, if Huckabee prevails in two of the early contests (where he could win both Iowa and South Carolina very plausibly) he may well win the nomination. McCain must win in New Hampshire and Rudy must win in Florida – otherwise they’re each out of the running. Thompson (who’s rapidly fading in polls despite his much improved performance as a candidate) needs a miracle win in South Carolina to stay in the race – otherwise, insider gossip suggests he’ll drop out and endorse one of his best friends from the Senate, John McCain (provided that the Arizona senator is still a factor).  

Meanwhile, McCain needs to succeed in his must-win New Hampshire struggle, and then knock off one other early state before “Tsunami Tuesday” on February 5^th; South Carolina (with an abundance of military veterans) and Michigan (where he beat George W. Bush handily eight years ago with the aid of independents) represent his best bets.

If the white-thatched Arizonan somehow beats the odds and scores an upset win in Iowa, it’s entirely possible that he sweeps to early victory and unites the party. Romney might well drop out if he lost both Iowa and New Hampshire (or else fight on to Michigan, Nevada and Florida, badly weakened). Thompson (as mentioned above) would almost certainly leave the race if he posted a weak showing in South Carolina. Huckabee might continue to compete (as a regional candidate with a primarily Southern and rural base) as would Rudy (who must somehow maintain the nation’s attention until the February 5^th primaries in California, New York, New Jersey and other big states provide him with sympathetic settings for his urban appeal).  

Anyone who tries to predict the final outcome with any reasonable degree of certainty deserves dismissal for arrogance and irresponsibility. Nevertheless, McCain’s apparently energized Iowa campaign makes it clear that he’s re-emerged as one of the viable contenders for the nomination.       

Huckabee Bags a Bird in Iowa

Presidential contender Mike Huckabee bagged a pheasant Wednesday, offering Iowa voters the image of an experienced outdoorsman on the hunt, shotgun blasting and dogs braying.

Just a campaign gambit? "Maybe it will show that I certainly understand the culture of being outdoors," Huckabee said. "It's not something we had to go out and get a primer in. It's very much ordinary to me."

The former Arkansas governor said back home he would be duck hunting on the day after Christmas, but pheasant hunting in Iowa -- eight days before the state's leadoff nominating caucuses -- was a good substitute. He also offered a lecture declaring that hunting is good for wildlife.

"The truth is hunters are the ones who preserve the species," he said, since hunters have an interest in preserving wildlife and their license fees pay for conservation efforts. "In many cases extinction comes from not having some level of hunting. It's the hunters who actually keep the wildlife alive. A lot of people think that when you hunt you're destroying the wildlife."

With the New Year upon us, I figured it was time to do a review of the 2007 GOP candidates.  This, of course, is purely my opinion.  In no particular order, here is my take on the candidates:

Mike Huckabee

What I like:  Without a doubt, Mike Huckabee is the most charismatic Republican running for president.  He's also a solid social conservative.

What I don't like:   Populism is a respected tradition in the Republican Party.  It helped a "C student" from Eureka College named Ronald Reagan win over "Reagan Democrats," and also wrest control of the GOP from the country club "Rockefeller Republicans."  Every time Rush Limbaugh talks about the "media elite" or the "Hollywood elite," he is, to some extent, advancing a populist message.  But the problem is that Mike Huckabee has gone beyond populism to class warfare.  That is a very different -- and a very dangerous -- type of rhetoric.

The Campaign:  If you're looking for an efficient campaign, look no further than Mike Huckabee's.  Though he has spent less than many Congressional candidates, he has managed to climb to the top of the Iowa -- and national -- polls.  This is nothing short of miraculous.  Of course, this has little to do with his campaign; Mike Huckabee is a cult of personality. 

How He Wins:  Mike Huckabee must win Iowa, and then hope the momentum carries him into South Carolina.  Presumably, an early win or two will kick-start his fundraising.  That's the theory, at least.

John McCain

What I Like:  If you've met John McCain, it's hard not to like him.  The fact that he is so available to reporters and bloggers probably means many of us predisposed, at least, toward liking him.  Aside from the ego boost many reporters and bloggers probably get from this exposure, there is also a substantive reason that McCain's availability is a good thing:  A candidate who is available to the media would also be a president who is open to ideas and willing to frequently talk to the media -- and the public.  McCain's background as a former POW rightly gives him credibility and respect.  For social conservatives, John McCain has a solid Pro-Life voting record -- the most solid of any candidate running.  Regarding Iraq, he was clearly right about the Surge from day one. 

What I Don't Like:  Campaign Finance Reform is a big deal breaker for a lot of conservatives -- and for good reason:  It is a violation of free speech, and is essentially incumbent protection.  On the personal side, I have heard from numerous reliable sources that McCain has a fierce temper and flies off the handle.  Other conservatives whom I respect even go so far as to describe him as "crazy".

The Campaign:  McCain's original team consisted of some of the best operatives in the business.  The only trouble was what worked for Bush in 2004 didn't fit John McCain.  He is, by nature, a maverick, and his campaign today fits that mold.  From a personal standpoint, McCain is lucky to have perhaps the best eCampaign Director in the business, Patrick Hynes.  Of course, Hynes' job is made easy by having a candidate who is so willing to deliver the straight talk to reporters and bloggers.

How He Wins:  McCain must win New Hampshire, and hope the momentum takes him to Michigan and South Carolina.  Theoretically, that would jump-start his fundraising.

Rudy Giuliani

What I Like:  During the debates, I often found myself really liking Rudy Giuliani.  He is, no doubt, a terrific leader, and he possesses gravitas as well as a disarming sense of humor.  Clearly, he is a good law-and-order type, and his promise to appoint "strict constructionist" judges is, at least, some comfort for social conservatives.

What I Don't Like:  Without rehashing all the issues, there is no doubt Rudy Giuliani is a social liberal.  There is also a sense that he might be a bit authoritarian, if it's possible to be just a bit authoritarian.  Moreover, his campaign is guarded and his staffers and advance men do a good job of keeping him isolated from bloggers, reporters, and others.  This, of course, plays into the negative stereotype. 

The Campaign:  Giuliani's strategy relies on defying history.  He is essentially banking on losing the first several primaries, and then winning big on February 5.  By essentially ignoring Iowa and New Hampshire, he had hoped to decrease their relevance, avoid being branded a "loser," and harvest his resources for later.  It is now clear he would have been better off to campaign hard in both states, come in 3rd, and then win on February 5.  From a personal standpoint, the Giuliani campaign has done a very good job of providing bloggers with surrogates.  For example, they arranged for me to interview former Solicitor General Ted Olson, as well as former Massachusetts Governor Paul Cellucci.

How He Wins:  Rudy needs to deprive Mitt Romney of winning both Iowa and New Hampshire.  To use football parlance, he doesn't control his own destiny.  He needs other teams (Huckabee and McCain) to beat Romney, for him to make it to the playoffs.

Mitt Romney

What I Like:   Based on the positions he is espousing, Mitt Romney is the most complete conservative running for president.  He is charismatic and well-spoken.  And his experience as a businessman makes him appealing to those who are yearning for efficiency and competence in government.

What I Don't Like:  Prior to deciding to run for president, Mitt Romney held dramatically different positions on a variety of important issues.  While primaries have a centrifugal nature, being an elected official has quite the opposite.  I worry about a candidate who isn't steeped in conservativism, and thus may lack the necessary moorings to keep him conservative when the going gets tough.  While the conservative movement should welcome converts, it should not immediately promote converts to the highest office in the land.  Additionally, Romney often appears to be self-righteous and too polished for his own good.

The Campaign:  Without a doubt, Mitt Romney's is the most disciplined and efficient of all the Republican campaigns.  Top-notch loyalists like Peter Flaherty have provided stability, as well as helped pull off what may have seemed like a miracle a year ago:  Making Romney acceptable -- and even preferable -- to many conservatives.  Romney wisely hired Gary Marx, who served as the Bush/Cheney '04 social conservative director, and the list of conservative movement endorsements that Romney has secured is impressive.  Kevin Madden, Romney’s press secretary, is no doubt the best in the business.  And Matt Rhoades, the famous Drudge friend, has no doubt been key to some of the anti-Huckabee/McCain stories that have recently surfaced.  Lastly, a year ago, Mitt Romney took my advice and hired a blogger.  Romney was well-served by bringing on some very talented e-campaign folks, early in this race.

How He Wins:  Mitt Romney, unlike Giuliani, controls his own destiny.  His path to the presidency is the clearest, and history is on his side.  What is more, he has the money to sustain him should he fumble once or twice.  But he still needs to win Iowa or New Hampshire.  He cannot afford to lose both.

Fred Thompson

What I Like:  Fred Thompson has gravitas.  He is humorous and has charisma.  Though he's not perfect, his record is reliably conservative.

What I Don't Like:  Like Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson is guarded.  His entourage keeps bloggers and voters, alike, at a distance.  More importantly, however, there seems to be no compelling reason for Fred Thompson to run for office, other than the fact that he thought he could easily win.

The Campaign:  Fred Thompson's campaign has famously been in disarray.  However, his commitment to Iowa, and his Iowa team, is what matters most now. 

How He Wins:  Of all the candidates, it is most difficult to lay out Fred Thompson's path to victory.  He needs to stay alive early by coming in 3rd in Iowa.  Then, he needs to hope the other candidates take turns winning, thereby depriving any one person of racking up states.  Also, as Newt Gingrich has noted, Fred Thompson is the one candidate whom (to much of the country, at least) doesn't have an accent.  If Fred can survive long enough to get there, he has a chance to win many of the southern states.

If you're looking for a good movie to see over the Holidays, let me recommend Charlie Wilson's War. 

For those not familiar with the storyline, "Good-Time Charlie" Wilson was Congressman from Texas who was better known for having a good time than for passing any laws.  His life changes when he becomes obsessed with beating the Soviet Union by using his seat on two powerful committees to begin funneling money and weapons to Afghan rebels.

If you enjoyed the success of recent films like The Passion, Chronicles of Narnia, and Amazing Grace, this film is further proof that inspirational and patriotic films have an audience.  (I don't want to go to far in comparing this film to those movies -- CWW isn't likely to be screened at any churches -- but my guess is this positive and patriotic film will likely do much better than the plaintive war films that have come out this year, such as Lions for Lambs.)

Without a doubt, the best performance in the movie comes from Philip Seymour Hoffman, who portrays Gust Avrakotos, the CIA case officer who helps Wilson procure arms for the Afghan rebels, and provides some comic-relief (the character is a bit reminiscent of John Goodman's character from The Big Lebowski).  In a lesser movie, Hoffman's performance would have completely stolen the show, but in this movie, he’s just icing on an already delicious cake.  Count on him to win best supporting actor. 

In order to establish his prurient nature, and thus drive home the story of his redemption, there are some gratuitous scenes in the beginning which aren't suitable for younger viewers. 

And perhaps most disappointing is the film’s failure to give credit to the man who did the most to win the cold war, Ronald Reagan.  This omission was clearly intentional (Tom Hanks, after all, is involved), and is corrected by Charlie Wilson himself, in the History Channel's historical perspective of the film.  Nobody would have expected the movie to be about Reagan, but making a movie about winning the cold war that doesn’t reference Reagan is a bit like making a movie about the Revolutionary War that doesn’t reference George Washington.

Still, the film is well worth seeing, and viewers will be better for having seen it.  While many heroes were involved in winning the cold war, the Afghanistan war is often viewed as the coup de grace for the Soviets.  As such, it is entirely true that Charlie Wilson was a hero of the cold war. 

Lastly, the movie raises the point that the “freedom fighters” we supported in order to beat the Soviets are in many cases the very terrorists we are confronting today. 

This debate is good to have, and it’s also good to remind folks that not too long ago, the Soviet Union was an Evil Empire bent on growing that Empire. 

If you're looking for a smart and entertaining movie to see during Christmas, this is it ...