Your ignorance only makes you more the fool.
As I noted earlier, the movie makes no "concluding" positions regarding American foreign policy.
It simply presents the two most widely held positions via Cruise's "BushCo" Senator and Streep's "Doubtful Mainstream MediaPerson".
If one were to take Cruise's dialouge from the script and lay it down without a credit, you would think you were reading Dick Cheney all day.
If one were to take Streep's dialouge, you'd think you were reading Keith Olbermann.
It's an interesting 30 minutes (probably about the combined total of the Streep/Cruise interview scene).
Redford's character takes absolutely no position on the Iraq invasion and occupation save for towards the end when he is directly countered by the two young students who have decided to enlist in the Army (and whose subsequent tale in Afghanistan makes up the third tier of the movie).
For every minute in the movie promoting "no Iraq invasion/occupation" there is an equal minute and character strongly promoting the BushCo beliefs.
Barman...this is a movie directed by Robert Redford. Do you have a clue about his politics or history on this matter? Apparently not.
Here is the very first review I found for this movie.
It's exactly what I said it was...and not as you tried to sugar coat it as some fair and balanced piece. :lolBIG:
C'mon...its Redford directing for God sakes. Hellooooooo! :howdy:
Theatrical Review: Lions for Lambs is an op-ed piece masquerading as a motion picture, a candid and cynical lecture series that indicts any institution remotely connected to the ongoing Iraqi conflict. The sentiments expressed should trigger discussions, but they don't add up to an interesting movie.
http://www.worstpreviews.com/review.php?id=654§ion=review