Oh, I thought "this film" was the topic of discussion. My mistake.
I think his point was, why are you outraged by this and not the Clancy example? Especially since you know nothing about this film except what the article says (and it's apparent most people here haven't read the article, either).
You had an objection that this film depicted the assassination of a U.S. President, and the manner in which it was done. I merely pointed out that Tom Clancy had done the same, and even worse. You can't really object to one and not the other on those grounds.