He may have the stated intention of telling a "great story." He may also know that his film will revive the same patriotic impulses that caused so many to rush to join the military after the terrorist attacks which are the subject of the film.

He may not be making the film specifically to stir up those impulses, but he may also be aware that his film will have that effect.

Where does his responsibility lie?

There are lots of double effect examples.

Catholicism allows that a morally grave wrong is permissible as a secondary effect given the following:

1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.

2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.

3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.

4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect.

I think that the problem with World Trade Center is that it fails #4. If you tell a good story and as a result many people are killed, I don't think that the good storytelling is sufficiently desirable to compensate for the death of innocents.

Unless you're saying that Karl Rove is waaaaay smarter than Oliver Stone -- which he may indeed be -- I think we have to assume that at some point during the making of the film Stone must have considered the possible/probable effects of upsetting people all over again about the terrorist attacks.