Paducah Home Theater Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 Today's the day. Anybody seen it already? I'm sure I'll be wondering how much of it is true vs. what's an embellishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) I haven't seen it. It seems to have been a tragedy of errors and symptomatic of Hillary's rather loose management of State (kind of like her poorly managed 2008 campaign). Senior State officials that should have been weeded out before Benghazi left afterward. That's one key thing about Hillary that bothers me. That said, a movie that would encourage propaganda and spinning by the all-expert Republican message-misters is almost certain to turn into a propaganda piece. The following two paragraphs from Wiki illustrate some accuracy in telling part of the story, but the debunked claim that State ordered the fighters to "stand down" -- a ridiculous lie designed to claim that Democrats want to lose to the country's enemies. Judge for yourself [from Wiki]: Critical response... ...Soren Andersen, writing for The Seattle Times, gave the film 3 stars out of 4, criticizing the lack of distinctive characters but ultimately summarizing 13 Hours as "engrossing" and "a ground-level depiction of heroism in the midst of the fog of war."Richard Roeper similarly praised 13 Hours in his review for the Chicago Sun-Times. Although he lamented the script, Roeper found the film to be a "solid action thriller with well-choreographed battle sequences and strong work from the ensemble cast." Like Roeper's review, New York Daily News' Joe Dziemianowicz was less receptive towards the script, but applauded the film's focus on the real-life attack, summarizing: "War is gritty here, not glamorous... [Michael Bay] delivers a gripping, harrowing, and heartfelt film."[42] In a mixed review, Inkoo Kang of TheWrap praised 13 Hours for its action scenes, but panned Bay's direction as "myopic". She writes: "13 Hours is the rare Michael Bay movie that wasn't made with teenage boys in mind. But that doesn't make his latest any less callously juvenile." Lindsey Bahr of the Associated Press was critical of the film's direction and cinematography, and found the screenplay to be confusing. Similarly, The Economist described the film as "a sleek, poorly scripted and largely meaningless film." Historical accuracy[edit] The film's historical accuracy has been disputed. In the film's most controversial scene, the CIA chief in Benghazi (identified only as "Bob") tells the military contractors there, who seek permission to go defend the embassy, to "stand down", thus denying them permission. The real-life CIA chief stated that there was no stand-down order. His statement was echoed by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee's finding that there was "no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the Chief of Base or any other party." Kris "Tonto" Paronto, a CIA contractor was involved in action during the event, has claimed "We were told to 'stand down'. Those words were used verbatim — 100 percent. ... If the truth of it affects someone's political career? Well, I'm sorry. It happens." Paronto has been accused of fabricating his account in order to make money, because he "had a book to sell and a movie to help promote." The CIA base chief portrayed in the film has directly contradicted Paronto's claims, stating, "There never was a stand-down order... At no time did I ever second-guess that the team would depart." Also disputed is the film's portrayal that air support was denied. A House Armed Services report found that air support was unavailable, or it would have arrived too late to make a difference. Commentator David French defended the film's references to air support, writing that even if resources could not have been flown in during the time available, this would itself be "scandalous", given Libya's known instability.... ...Zack Beauchamp of Vox criticized the film overall, writing that its depiction of the alleged stand-down order and the availability of air support indirectly promoted "pernicious conspiracy theories" that President Obama and/or Secretary Clinton did not want the embassy to be defended. Edited June 7, 2016 by LarryC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teaman Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 After watching a two hour special where the survivors were interviewed I would say it is pretty truthful. Anyone that has watched Hillary speak for 30 years knows she cannot come to tell the truth, no matter who's lives are on the line. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CECAA850 Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 And I see where this is headed...................................... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts