MovieChat Forums > Rules of Engagement (2000) Discussion > This is what I dont get...

This is what I dont get...

posted 18 years ago by florige
6 replies | jump to latest

The NSA (national security advisor) asked his aid if there were any weapons found on any of the dead people and his aid said no. But when his aid offered to play the tape which actually would have shown that the crowd did indeed have weapons he said "forget the tape". Now why even ask if any weapons were found in the crowd if he already knew he was out to crucify Childress? If they had allowed for the tape to have been aired it would have clearly shown justification for Col. Childress actions.

[–] dao54 18 years ago

I guess that knowing that no weapons were find, he thought the content of the tape was useless.
Or that he wanted to crucify Childress from the beginning. Once he knew no weapons were find, his hands were free. Didn't matter what was on the tape.

[–] florige 18 years ago

Yeah he had to have wanted to crucify him from the jump. Because if he really cared about the well-being of Childress he woulda at least looked at the tape.

[–] Commander_Cronus 18 years ago

As I remember, the movie did seem to have a couple of plot holes.

Support the troops, but don't trust the politicians.

[–] JRotten9802 18 years ago

You've hit the plot hole that really ruined the movie for me. I hope this wasn't an invention on Stephen Gaghan's part. I really love his screenplays for "Syriana" and "Traffic".

[–] Totemkauf 10 years ago

I don't see a plot hole. His priority was covering up/protecting the government.
He asked if there were guns because if there weren't all he had to do was destroy the tape and Childers would seem unjustified and blameable.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]