President Bush Assassinated In New Movie
Posted on August 31, 2006
Drudge is calling it shocking. Nothing is shocking anymore. I would call it typical. After seeing all of the kooky 911 conspiracies and terrorist sympathy in the world something like this is only the natural next step.
This is the dramatic moment when President George Bush is gunned down by a sniper after a public address at a hotel, in a gripping new docudrama soon to be aired on TV.
Set around October 2007, President Bush is assassinated as he leaves the Sheraton Hotel in Chicago.
Death of a President, shot in the style of a retrospective documentary, looks at the effect the assassination of Bush has on America in light of its ‘War on Terror’.
The 90 minutes feature explores who could have planned the murder, with a Syrian-born man wrongly put in the frame.
Peter Dale, head of More4, which is due to air the film on October 9, said the drama was a “thought-provoking critique” of contemporary US society.
He said: “It’s an extraordinarily gripping and powerful piece of work, a drama constructed like a documentary that looks back at the assassination of George Bush as the starting point for a very gripping detective story.
“It’s a pointed political examination of what the War on Terror did to the American body politic.
Thought provoking? Yeah right. But I’m sure there is a market for such a movie. The fringe moonbats will be flocking to see this.
AJ Strata: calls it a liberal’s wet dream.
This movie appears to be something of a threatening warning to Bush and America. It seems to say “change course or look what could happen”. It is as close to a horse head in bed as you can get (for those who know the Godfather movies). Well, Saddam and Bin Laden and others have sent the same message.
Completely over the top, sick, and outrageous? Absolutely. Shocking? Hardly.
Not all lefties want Bush assasinated. Some would miss making jokes out the concept because, you know, its such a laughing matter and all.
Michelle Malkin has numerous examples to show that this is nothing new.
Hang Right Politics calls it beyond the pale.
Jeff Goldstein:
On the plus side though, this alt-history scenario leaves open the titilating possibility that OJ is the perhaps the real killer.
Which, you have to admit, would be a kind of artistic tour de force.
Others: Hot Air…twice.
Rightwing Nuthouse
» Filed Under News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
17 Responses to “President Bush Assassinated In New Movie”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
A liberals wet dream?
You betcha’.
Along with Bush they’d like to kill Rove, Cheney, the board of Halliburton and most of us right wing bloggers, if the screed and threats they write is any indication.
It always amuses me that the folks that believe we shouldn’t have guns love to threaten those of us that do have them.
Kinda’ like being one of those stupid kids that throw rocks at tanks, and wonder why they can’t stop them from advancing.
Does anyone know where this is supposed to be aired?
Comment by OttO on August 31st, 2006 @ 11:30 am
After the third “gay cowboys eating pudding” movie at some film festival.
So somebody made a movie about Dick Cheney becoming president huh? Yeah that’s what the libs want.
“It always amuses me that the folks that believe we shouldn’t have guns love to threaten those of us that do have them.”
It always amuses me to see Kender whine about threats when he is perfectly willing to make death threats against anyone who disagrees with him. It’s quite funny really: When Kender wants to discredit someone, he accuses them of acting exactly as he does.
Note that so far as can be told from the press coverage thus far of this BBC fictional work, neither Kender nor anyone else is ‘threatened’ in any way.
Meatbrain,
Threatening an American President is a crime. You can get away with it if you do not have the means to do it. The question is if this fictional work will encourage copycats to take a pot shot at President Bush. I would say the risk is too great that it will.
If you think fiction is not an influence on people then check out the atheist Raelian Religion that is based on Carl Sagan’s Cosmic Connection. It is a growing movement.
Hiya meathead…….why wont you answer my question meathead?
What is your major malfunction mister?
“The question is if this fictional work will encourage copycats to take a pot shot at President Bush. I would say the risk is too great that it will.”
How do you evaluate this “risk”? Is there a quantitative measure? If not, what’s the real difference between saying “the risk is too great” and saying “well, I just plain don’t like it”?
I’ve got an idea! Why don’t we make a movie that shows President Clinton kidnapped by Islamic terrorist and beheaded. It would be only for public debate. It would be a thought provoking docu drama.
meatbrain still refuses to answer my question…..typical avoidance.
“Why don’t we make a movie that shows President Clinton kidnapped by Islamic terrorist and beheaded. It would be only for public debate. It would be a thought provoking docu drama.”
Go right ahead and do so, Jay. Eliminationist rhetoric is a staple of the far right wing, as you have already proven. No one will be the least bit surprised to see you do this.
And what would be the difference in that movie and the one we are talking about?
Simple, Jay: Your movie would have been made by someone with a proven track record of advocating murder as a political instrument.
I am still trying to figure out what Islamic terrorist would kidnap and kill their friend. We all know appeasing those poor abused Muslims will stop their wanton killing. We also know the left likes to appease them. (Yes, I am being sarcastic)
Have you been watching the news? When Iran is offered incentives to stop their nuclear production that is called appeasing. When you advocate withdrawing troops because the terrorist want them out that is called appeasing. When you advocate giving land to the Palestinians to stop the bloodshed that is called appeasing. If you advocate giving up criminals in return for a kidnapped soldier that is called appeasing. There is plenty of other forms of appeasing that go on.
“When Iran is offered incentives to stop their nuclear production that is called appeasing.”
No, it’s called finding a diplomatic solution. Not everyone is as fond of war and death as you are, Kerwin.
“When you advocate withdrawing troops because the terrorist want them out that is called appeasing.”
Who, specifically and by name, advocates withdrawing troops because the terrorists want them out?
“When you advocate giving land to the Palestinians to stop the bloodshed that is called appeasing.”
No, that is also diplomacy. Of course, such a solution doesn’t involve killing brown people, and so you naturally find it unacceptable.
In 1948, British forces withdrew from Palestine after several years of terrorist attacks conducted primarily by the militant Zionist organization known as Irgun. The withdrawal of the British effectively ceded the territory they occupied to the nascent state of Israel.
Without getting into the question of whether Israel has a right to exist (I happen to agree that it does), the British could be said to have given land to the Jews to stop the bloodshed — and thus, it was an act of appeasement. Do you find that act of appeasement on the part of the British to have been unacceptable? If not, why not?
And Kerwin… you did not answer the question: Who, specifically and by name, says that “appeasing those poor abused Muslims will stop their wanton killing”? Put up or shut up, Kerwin.
You refer to it as diplomacy and I refer to it as appeasing. It was diplomacy when the Roman Empire paid the Barbarians not to attack. We know where it got them. There is times you do appease the opponents but there are also times to fight.
The British were withdrawing from Israel as an agreement with the international community and not to appease the Jews. They did not care who they gave the land to. They may have been appeasing a faction of their own people who favored a Jewish homeland.
The United Nations and its supporters sure seem like they believe that will happen.