Appropriate? Bush "Assassinated" in New Movie

Share with: Everybody. Sharing is caring, ya know.


Now, let’s play a little game:
Imagine if the word “Bush” was replaced with Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, John Kerry. Go.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Share with: Everybody. Sharing is caring, ya know.


45 thoughts on “Appropriate? Bush "Assassinated" in New Movie

  1. Films depicting the assasination of a sitting President, regardless of party, is totally inappropriate. You can include sitting Senators and Representatives as well.

    Like them or not, they are elected by the majority of the country.

  2. Heyyyyyyyyyyyy Socialists Where are ya????????? Are you _ _ _ – proud of this piece of Garbage Movie. Speak up Hello Hellooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

  3. I’m proud that you may still exercise your American right to choose not to see the film.

    Boy, that was hard now, wasn’t it? Or is America still going to hell because of some movie? (eyes roll)

    (btw – Have you seen said movie yet?)

  4. The movie in question was made in Britain, to be aired on British television. So if anyone wants to censor the movie, you are suggesting that the United States should exercise rights of censorship over private citizens, not directly connected with their government, in a sovereign foreign state. We don’t have the right to censor movies in this country, and we sure as hell don’t have the right to suippress a movie made in another country. And as the good “r” says, we all have the right not to see it at all.

  5. WSDavid, This piece of garbage was made in Britain for the British viewere. But surely you know that it will find its way to the U.S in very short order. Therefore, in my opinion, the major movie theaters should refuse to show it. However, many will show it anyway. And more than likely, they will cheered on by the likes of Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand, Rob Reiner, Harry Belafonte, and Danny Glover, to name just a few. Oh, yes, I almost forgot, the AmINO CLU.

  6. Although it was made in Britain, I do believe the article mentions it will debut at the Canadian film festival.

    Regardless, films depicting the assasination of any sitting world leader go beyond freedom of expression.

    Imagine the outcry if we made a film of Ahmadinejad being assasinated. We would be accused of inciting murder, encouraging overthrowing a sitting President, you name it.

    As I said before, it is totally inappropriate to make a film depicting the assasination of any of our leaders. Had this been done during Clinton’s time, I would be just as opposed.

  7. WestsideCommunistGarbage—– Theres no free speech when a living President’s Life is Threatened. The secret service
    can investigate anywhere in the World — WestsideCommunistgarbage.
    Do you agree with the premise of this movie—another words ASSINATING President Bush??? If so I can arrange the Secret Service to pay you a visit. Everyone Knows All you _ __ _ _ _ _ _ think along the premise of this Movie Anyway. Just Say it. Say itttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt

  8. As I’m Writing this I’m Checking every Piece of Garbage Left Wing Socialist COMUNIST Democratic Party Blog, Website, Newspaper, Television Network, for your Misteps on this Movie, and I bet the Secret Service is to.

  9. Rush Is Right!

    Media Plugs Bush Assassination Film

    They talk about Rush’s comments on the film, not the film itself!

    See, I Told You So…

  10. Film Festival Director Raves About ‘Assassinate Bush’ Movie
    By Patrick Goodenough
    CNSNews.com International Editor
    September 01, 2006

    (CNSNews.com) – “Xenophobia, the hidden costs of war and the nature of civil liberties in a hyper-media age all come under the microscope” in a controversial movie depicting the fictional assassination of President Bush.

    So says Noah Cowan, director of the Toronto Film Festival, where the British-made movie will premier on Sept. 10.

    On the festival’s website, Cowan describes the movie as “easily the most dangerous and breathtakingly original film I have encountered this year.”

    He says the director, Gabriel Range, “is interested in addressing today’s political issues.”

    Until now, the movie has been referred to by the Toronto Film Festival as simply “D.O.A.P.,” but at a press conference in Britain Thursday, it was announced by the title “Death of a President.”

    Britain’s Channel 4’s More4 channel is reportedly hoping to sell the feature-length drama to U.S. networks. After three screenings in Toronto, it will air in Britain on Oct. 9.

    At the press conference, More4 head Peter Dale called the film “a pointed political examination of what the war on terror is doing to the American body politic.”

    Range uses computer-generated imagery, archive footage and special effects in the film, which reportedly depicts a nation polarized by Bush administration foreign and domestic policies — and features anti-war demonstrations.

    The movie is styled as a documentary made several years hence, looking back at the assassination of Bush by an unknown sniper at a Chicago hotel in October 2007 and subsequent events.

    Providing a glimpse of the “xenophobia” aspect that Range evidently explores, the synopsis refers to the hunt for the president’s killer focusing on an Arab — a Syrian-born man named Jamal Abu Zikri. The implication is that the suspicion may be misplaced.

    News of the movie was circulating on numerous Internet sites and major blogs Thursday.

    CBN News reporter Dale Hurd wrote in a commentary that “Death of a President” “should provide haters of Bush on the Left and in the Muslim world with 93 minutes of pure viewing pleasure.”

    On one movie website, a critic identified as Devin Faraci wrote that although he has not seen other movies directed by Range, “I will say that my interest is piqued. And not just because I hate Bush!”

  11. “Do you agree with the premise of this movie—another words ASSINATING President Bush??? “

    I agree. No one should be assinated. It sounds REALLY unpleasant. In these or another words.

  12. You’re joking, right?

    Uh, NO.

    I’m proud that you may still exercise your American right to choose not [not to read my words expressed under my American right of Freedom of SPeecha dn Expression]

  13. WestsideCommunistGarbage—– Theres no free speech when a living President’s Life is Threatened.”

    I would wager that you also took issue with the DaVinici code, klatu? It seems you are unable to grasp the concept of “non-fiction.” This movie is not “threatening the President’s life.” It’s billed as taking a conceptual look at how angry political bent just like yours is becoming more accepted and encouraged by the “conservative” leaders and xenophobic right wing media. Before you get your knickers in a bunch, have you even seen the film? Or are you the likes of the “condemn Harry Potter without ever reading it” crowd?

    And lew,

    You would never welcome a movie that depicted the assassination of say, Saddam? Ok Kim Jong-il? I’ll take you at your word if you say so, but you have to admit that’s a tough nut to swallow…

  14. You would never welcome a movie that depicted the assassination of say, Saddam? Ok Kim Jong-il?

    Show me the film were such was depicted. Then, please show me where I supported the film.

  15. It was a theoretical question lew.

    And klatu, is it simply a movie’s specific reference to actual sitting presidents that bothers you? I can think of many movies with fictional American presidents being threatened, killed, or the like.

  16. L_equals_bs: Its the job of the secret service to investigate any threats on Living US Presidents. President Bush is not Fictional. This movie should be Edited,Censored,or not allowed in the USA.

    And youknowhowtospellaslongasyourspellcheckworks: Read the Rush Limbaugh quotes again. Just like your buddies with the Lamestream Media attacking Rush and not talking about the premise of the movie, they went after him, just like you went after me. Thats what I’m Saying you and the Lamestream Media agree with the premise of this Movie, that President Bush Should be ASSASSINATED. Just Say it. Say itttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt

  17. I seem to remember 8-9 months ago that the REV. PAT ROBERTSON mentioned ASSASSINATING COMMUNIST THUG “CHAVEZ” and was crucified for the Comment. Why the double Standard? I’ll answer my own question because the LameStream Media and Socialists everywhere Hate President Bush and Love Chavez.

    You -_ _ _ _ _ – – – – _ _.

  18. I seem to remember 8-9 months ago that the REV. PAT ROBERTSON mentioned ASSASSINATING COMMUNIST THUG “CHAVEZ” and was crucified for the Comment. Why the double Standard? I’ll answer my own question because the LameStream Media and Socialists everywhere Hate President Bush and Love Chavez.

    You -_ _ _ _ _ – – – – _ _.

  19. Klatu, please take the time to wipe the spittle off your chin, then try to wrap your head around the fact that no, I do not want to see this (or any other) President assinated, assassinated, or otherwise ass-ed in any way, shape, or form. I have not seen this movie, so I can’t comment on it.

    The thing I understand about this movie, not having seen it, is that it proposes a “what if …” scenario, exploring what might happen if President Bush were to be assassinated (which, once again, I do not wish for).

    Pat Robertson, on the other hand, spoke not in terms of a fictional “what if” scenario, but in actual, real-life “the guy should die” terms.

    Big difference.

    Is this new movie irresponsible? I can’t say. I haven’t seen it. But I know it’s fiction (if you don’t have a dictionary ready, “fiction” means “make believe” – just so you understand).

    And if you’re going to pretend to swear, “_ _ _ _ _ – – – – _ _.” doesn’t cut it. Throw some ampersands and asterisks in there somewhere. Make it worthwhile.

  20. klatu:
    I’m sorry that I am so slow in getting back to you, but I do want to mention that there is one more name that you really should add to the list of people that you are handing over to the Secret Service as sources who are spreading word of this film far and wide. You see, I first learned of the existence of this film from a television show that I happened to catch. The hostess of the show is one NANCY GRACE, and she really did spend a considerable amount of time discussing the film’s premise and making sure that anyone even giving casual attention to the show (myself included) were entirely aware of what the movie depicted. So, to be complete about the information that you give to the Secret Service, do be certain that you include mention of her as a source diseminating a wide range of information about the movie: NANCY GRACE.

    Many thanks.

  21. Westside: Sorry I don’t listen or watch Socialist Liberal NANCY GRACE on her Communist News Network.

    Ps Lets find out what the rest of you Garbage Socialists were saying about the Rev. Pat Robertson 8-9 months ago. Its probably in the Data Base still.

    PPS GarbageSpeller—and the producer of this Movie “said and ment that President Bush should Die. The producer of the movie should be arrested. This is not Fiction.

  22. “… and the producer of this Movie “said and ment that President Bush should Die.””

    I had not heard this, and I cannot find anything on-line about it. Do you have a link (he asked with breathless anticipation)?

    And, Klatu, a personal question. You don’t happen to be this guy, do you?

  23. klatu:
    You raise a question about the parallels between this movie and the statement by the Reverend Mr. Pat Robertson sugesting that Oresident Hugo Chavez of Venezuela should be assassinated. I think there are more differences that similarities.

    First of all, the producer of this movie has created a “What if?” scenario. Other than your one reference, I have seen no indication that the producer wants to see President Bush killed. The Rev. Mr. Robertson specifically said that Mr. Chavez should be killed.

    Second, consider their roles. The producer is a movie maker in England. He probably has some fans who admire his work, but I’ve found nothing to indicate that he has messianic aspirations. He hopes his fans will come to see his movies, but beyond that, I don’t think he pretends to suggest that they should look to him for guidance on how to order their lives. When he makes a movie, he makes something intended preeminently for entertainment. By contrast, the Rev. Mr. Robertson holds himself out as a minister of the Christian faith, as the leader of a large following fo religious adherents. He does hold himself out as their guide, and he does try to dictate how they will order their lives. When he says something, it is quite often a directive to his flock.

    Third, in the several days sine this issue surfaced, with American medica shrieking about it, I have not heard that the producer claimed that he really did not plan to show the killing of a president, that he has been misconstrued or anything else. When the Rev. Mr. Robertson made his ill-considered statement, he almost immediately tried to deny having done so. Indeed, much of the flap about the statement stemmed less from the statement itself than from the good reverend’s trying to deny having made it, despite the fact that it was captured on videotape, which established incontrovertibly that he did say that Hugo Chavez should be shot. Further, when cornered, the Rev. Mr. Robertson backpedalled in a most awkward way, suggesting that he meant that President Chavez should only be kidnapped, as if an international kidnapping of a sitting head of a sovereign state would not be an international scandal.

    In short, I see few parallels and many points of contrast.

  24. David, I think if you were to look back at Robertsons comment, you would find several Right Wingers that also felt it was inappropriate.

    Still, it was a personal comment, not a made for entertainment movie.

    Filming a movie calls for a much greater deal of forethought than an inappropriate comment. Both are very wrong, I feel, but the movie shows much greater thinking about the call.

    Wrong is wrong, but calling it entertainment is outrageous.

  25. Klatu, I have looked. I can’t find it. Maybe you’re smarter than me, and I’m a big dummy. Show it by providing proof that what you claim is true.

    Pretty please, with sugar on top.

    It should be really, really easy to do if you’re not making stuff up.

  26. klatu, you are, as you would put it, a _ _ _ _ – _ _ _ liar. No surprise.

    Dale conceded that the program will be controversial but maintained that it was a work meant to provoke debate.

    “I’m sure there will be people upset by it,” he said. “I hope people will see the intention as a good one.”

    Director Gabriel Range denied charges of sensationalism.

    “The film is based on meticulous research and interviews with FBI agents and people on the other side of the war on terror,” he told The Times.

    “It is a serious and sensitive film. There is no way it would encourage anyone to assassinate Bush and usher in Cheney’s America,” said Range, whose 2003 television movie “The Day Britain Stopped” showed what might happen if the country’s transportation network ground to a halt.

    Festival co-director Noah Cowan praises the film in a posting on the TIFF website.

    “This is easily the most dangerous and breathtakingly original film I have encountered this year,” he writes.

    But he contends that the film does not launch a personal attack against Bush.

    “Range simply seeks to explore the potential consequences that might follow from the president’s policies and actions,” Cowan says.

  27. Hey leftees, I got a great idea.

    Since we are only “exploring potential consequences” from assasinations, why not a film depicting the assasination of the entire Democratic Party leadership?

    That should really be a serious look into just what could develope and possibly even make a better country.

    Just a thought.

    Let me know if you agree and I’ll start writing Hollyweird recommending such a movie. Hopefully, you’ll join me.

  28. “Since we are only “exploring potential consequences” from assasinations, why not a film depicting the assasination of the entire Democratic Party leadership?”

    Considering the current Republican majority in congress, a “Republican” in the White House, and the lack of a “two word” culture among any of the Democratic Party, do you really think your scenario would make any difference?

    I’ve never seen, aside of 2 year olds, any political party to be such cry babies, when they hold all the cards! (eyes roll)

    Oh, and go ahead, make your movie. Make it about killing Clinton or whoever you all always blame when you’re losing an argument. That would encourage critical thought, which I’m all for.

  29. r, you’re funny. Critical thought? ROFLMAO.

    I’ve only seen one from the left here ever display any critical thought, even if I disagree with him.

    I’ve never seen, aside of 2 year olds, any political party to be such cry babies

    Apparently, you don’t actually read many Democrats words they release. Seems to me, there are several “crybabies” complaining they aren’t in power and who are politicizing a war to regain that power.

    Like it or not, politicians are crybabies and personally, I’m tired of it. I’d prefer to see our elected officials stand on their values and let the chips fall where they may, without the demonization.

  30. Lew:
    Of the difference between the rev. Mr. Robertson’s comment and the movie: the movie is fiction, however suggestive it may be. The “president” in that movie is an actor, and after the shooting is done, he will get up, brush himself off, and walk away. The Rev. Mr. Robertson talked about killing a real live human being. And when people challenged him on it, he tried to evade responsibility for what he had done to the point of lying about it.

    In some ways, i equate the outcry over this moive to the outcry over Harry Potter books. Some people have condemned those books, notwithstanding the fact taht millions of young people did serious reading to get through them, because they touched on sensitive topics. Is this another case of sound and fury, signifying very little?

  31. “…and who are politicizing a war to regain that power.”

    Who is politicizing the “war” lew? Seems to me Republicans have the upper hand in that game.

    And yes, critical thought lew. You know, considering all the possible information before forming any opinion. Say for instance, not demonizing a movie before anyone has even seen it…?

  32. Say for instance, not demonizing a movie before anyone has even seen it…?

    BWAHAHAHAHA. I love seeing leftees place their foot in the mouth.

    Does this also apply to all the Democrats demonizing and complaining about the upcoming mini-series on ABC, “The Path to 9/11?”

    Since you can’t figure it out, my opposition is to the subject of the movie, assasinating any sitting current world leader. Regardless of the quality of the filmimng, direction and such, I feel the subject matter is totally inappropriate and that applies to whoever it would have been made about.

  33. lew, it appears you are having trouble making a distinction between a movie that presents itself as fiction, and a documentary that presents itself as fact, yet is filled with historical inaccuracies, some entirely fictional.

    I find it interesting that you have such a disdain for any movie that might depict a fictional account of any world leader being assassinated, but have no problem with a movie that makes up history and presents outright lies as fact, in what appears to be in large part a “blame Clinton” wet dream.

    I am however not surprised by yet more “inaccuracies” of events surrounding 9/11. A large part of the American public still think Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Just how do you suppose they were led to make that connection? I’ll give you a hint, it wasn’t from any movie.

  34. Not to worry, r, the communist leadership of the Democrats are issuing veiled threats if the Path to 9/11 is even shown.

    Hmmm, can you say Censorship? Can you say government control? I guess that is alright with you all, though, as long as it is your version of matters that is shown only.

    Incidentally, please show me where I said this movie should not be shown at all. I do not agree with it and have stated such. I did not anywhere call for it to be sheleved under any threats of any kind.

    Next, show me where any Republican Party leadership is issuing any threats if this movie of assasination is shown. Show me where any threats of license were issued against Michael Moore.

    Welcome to the Union of Socialist States of Amerika, if Democrats retake control of the government.

    Preemptive CYA Turns to Threats – Smacks of Censorship

  35. “I guess that is alright with you all, though, as long as it is your version of matters that is shown only.”

    Since “our” version is historical fact rather than admitted “fictional parody,” then I suppose so.

    “Next, show me where any Republican Party leadership is issuing any threats if this movie of assasination is shown. Show me where any threats of license were issued against Michael Moore.”

    C’mon lew, that would be playing fair. It’s much more successful to just demonize and discredit by distorting truths or blaming everything down to your sore thumb on Clinton or “the liberals.” And save your “do as I say, not as I do” rhetoric about liberals and the “party of tolerance,” etc. I can admit both parties can and do resort to smear tactics. Sadly though, it seems to be party policy these days for conservatives.

    In case you missed it, your America destroying assassination movie is not being shown on a major American network, funded by a major American corporation, or even made in America! And yet somehow this is, at least for you, another “hypocritical liberal soapbox.”

    I dig the link to your own blog, nice touch. (thumbs up) And for the love of pete, will you please learn to spell assassination correctly?

  36. There was “SOME” applause at the end of the screening of this piece of Garbage, Fictional, Left Wing, they hope it comes true, propaganda piece. I’m sure the DNC, and MOVEON.ORG and Michael Moore,WILL BE HELPING with the distribution of this FICTIONAL PIECE.

Comments are closed.