Why doesn't "World Trade Center" mention bin Laden?
Some people who have seen Oliver Stone's film "World Trade Center" are wondering why the film neglects to mention who was behind 9/11. After all, we're talking about Oliver Stone here - someone who has never shied away from presenting the facts as he sees them.
In fact, considering Stone's reputation as a shrewd and incisive political and social commentator and conspiracy theorist, doesn't it seem odd that he would make a film that avoids even HINTING at who might have been behind the attacks?
What might Stone be saying by saying nothing?
UC-Berkeley professor Ruth Rosen thinks that by failing to mention any perpetrators, "World Trade Center" allows the ill-informed to continue believing that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were involved. She thinks Stone should have added a postscript to the movie saying that "government officials" have determined that it was Osama bin Laden and 20 other Saudi Arabian and Egyptian men who planned and executed the attacks - not Saddam or anyone from Iraq. That way, Rosen suggests, it would be painfully clear to the ill-informed that we shouldn't be in Iraq at all and should instead be focusing our efforts on capturing bin Laden and dismantling al Qaeda.
While we wouldn't argue with Rosen's assertions about Saddam and Iraq, we would question her assumption that those "government officials" are telling the whole story, or the whole truth. In fact, we think that's precisely why Stone intentionally avoided mentioning any perpetrators: because he knows that the jury is still out, not only as to who planned and executed the attacks but as to who allowed them to happen.
Was it Cheney and the neocons? Was it Bush? Was it Karl Rove? Was it Clinton?
We may have to wait for Stone's next movie, "World Trade Center II," to find out...