RIP: Good Time Charlie Wilson

<a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Charlie_Wilson_with_Afghan_man.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a>

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Former Congressman Charlie Wilson (D-TX) died today of an apparent heart attack at the age of 76. I’m guessing he felt lucky to have made it this far, given that he lived about 25 years longer than he was supposed to. His heart started to give out back in 1985–possibly the result of heavy drinking and cocaine use–and doctors gave him 18 months to live. (In 2007, he finally got a transplant.) The colorful Texas pol retired from Congress in 1996 as something of a legend, and not just because of his fondness for Playboy bunnies and his hot-chick Hill staffers known as “Charlie’s Angels.” But Wilson became even more outsized after the 2007 release of the Tom Hanks film, “Charlie Wilson’s War,” which lionized him for his role in helping to covertly arm the Afghan mujahideen in the 1980s and forcing the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

I met Wilson back in 1998, when he had faded temporarily from the public eye. He was doing what most retired congressmen do in Washington: working as a well-paid lobbyist, primarily for the country of Pakistan. It wasn’t the most noble work, despite what Wilson seemed to think about his efforts to get the U.S. government to sell weapons and fighter jets to Pakistan. Of course, that was before the Afghan men he’d helped arm played a key role in the attacks on the World Trade Center. I was working on a story about the democratic fundraiser, Terry McAuliffe, who had been making some trips to Pakistan, and rumor had it that Wilson was pissed because he thought McAuliffe was trying to steal away his client. So I called him. True to form, Wilson suggested that I meet him for a drink at DC’s storied Madison Hotel, in the old, smoky back-room bar where it was easy to imagine him cutting many a deal over the years. He was more charming than Tom Hanks, and the “Good Time” moniker seemed truly apt. It was hard not to like the guy; unfortunately, he didn’t have much intelligence to pass on and ended up being a pretty lousy source. He seemed old even then. Still, hanging out in the bar with Wilson made me feel like I’d touched a part of history. What’s been harder to figure out since then is what to make of that history. I suspect the obituary writers will have the same problem with him.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate