There seems to be an overwhelming response to this movie yet no one with the insight to critique its methodology, which is extremely flawed. It simply continues to propogate journalistic style analysis, which is that it plays off of the audiences lack of knowledge and prejudice in order to evoke an emotional decry and outburst of negative diatribe.
Journalism 101: tell the viewer some fact only in order to predispose them into drawing conclusions which are predictable. for instance, the idea of civil war, chaos, looting, etc were all supposedly unexpected responses to the collapse of governmental infrastructure following Hussein's demise: were these not all symptomatic of an already destitute culture? doctrinal infighting as symptomatic of these veins of Islam itself, rather than a failure in police force to restrain and secure? would they rather the US have declared marshall law? i'm sure the papers here would've exploded with accusations of a police state and fascist force.
aside from the analytical idiocy of the film, it takes a few sideliners and leaves the rest out claiming "so-and-so refused to be interviewed..." yet the questions they would've asked are no doubt already answered by the hundred inquisitions those individuals have already received. would you, as vice president, deign to be interviewed by a first time writer/producer which was most certainly already amped to twist your words. they couldn't roll tape of Condi to actually show her opinion and answer some of the logistics of the questions, perhaps they never watched her hearing.
this is far from a neutral glimpse of the situation on the ground there. this is another biased, asinine approach by journalists - which are, by and large, unthinking herds.
anyone wanting to comment on war ought at least have based their ideas on things a little more reliable than NBC coverage and CNN commentary. these interpretations smack of the same vitriol which simply creates a further bipartisanism of those who want to think and those who want to be told by the media what to think.
Journalism 101: tell the viewer some fact only in order to predispose them into drawing conclusions which are predictable. for instance, the idea of civil war, chaos, looting, etc were all supposedly unexpected responses to the collapse of governmental infrastructure following Hussein's demise: were these not all symptomatic of an already destitute culture? doctrinal infighting as symptomatic of these veins of Islam itself, rather than a failure in police force to restrain and secure? would they rather the US have declared marshall law? i'm sure the papers here would've exploded with accusations of a police state and fascist force.
aside from the analytical idiocy of the film, it takes a few sideliners and leaves the rest out claiming "so-and-so refused to be interviewed..." yet the questions they would've asked are no doubt already answered by the hundred inquisitions those individuals have already received. would you, as vice president, deign to be interviewed by a first time writer/producer which was most certainly already amped to twist your words. they couldn't roll tape of Condi to actually show her opinion and answer some of the logistics of the questions, perhaps they never watched her hearing.
this is far from a neutral glimpse of the situation on the ground there. this is another biased, asinine approach by journalists - which are, by and large, unthinking herds.
anyone wanting to comment on war ought at least have based their ideas on things a little more reliable than NBC coverage and CNN commentary. these interpretations smack of the same vitriol which simply creates a further bipartisanism of those who want to think and those who want to be told by the media what to think.