Posted on 08/31/2006 5:47:02 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
More4 risks US ire with Bush assassination film
Jason Deans, broadcast editor Thursday August 31, 2006 MediaGuardian.co.uk
Digital channel More4 will court controversy once again this autumn with a fictional piece, shot as a documentary, about the assassination of the US president, George Bush.
Death of a President seems certain to cause a furore on the other side of the Atlantic when it is premiered at the Toronto film festival next month.
In the UK the 90-minute film will be broadcast first on Channel 4's digital service in October.
The drama takes the form of a fictional documentary looking back at the assassination of Mr Bush in October 2007, after he has delivered a speech to business leaders in Chicago.
When Mr Bush arrives in the city he is confronted by a massive demonstration against the Iraq war and is gunned down by a sniper as he leaves the venue. The hunt for Mr Bush's killer focuses on a Syrian-born man, Jamal Abu Zikri.
Death of a President will use a combination of archive footage, CGI special effects and scripted scenes.
Actors play the fictional secret service agents and other aides who are with Mr Bush when he is shot and recall the incident in interviews recorded for the retrospective documentary.
Death of a President also looks at the differing viewpoints of the pro- and anti-Iraq war lobbies and the impact of Mr Bush's war on terror on the US.
(Excerpt) Read more at media.guardian.co.uk ...
Why is this breaking news?
I'm outraged. Why couldn't the killer be a Lutheran from Iowa named Ole Olson? I'm telling CAIR.
It is no wonder they can so easily ignore the vileness and risks of 'WOT'. . .they have their very own home-grown version of Liberal terrorism being carried out, right here at home.
( Did hear Rush offering that perhaps we need a movie of a beheading of Bill Clinton. . .for 'discussion' purposes only, of course.
In that, I am all for 'balance'. . .bring it on. Can already hear these Lib hypocrits jumping on Rush's bones for such a callous; ignoble and outrageous proposition. . .)
Probaby this has been answered. . .but book/movie was 'Primary Colors' by Anonymous. . .Joe Klein eventually climbed out of the woodwook to claim authorship.. .
I repeat, BIG DIFFERENCE! You are totally grasping at straws trying to tie these two together...oh, which one "seemed a lot like Clinton?" Durling, Kealthy, certainly not Jack Ryan.
Whichever one you're saying "seemed a lot Clinton" was NOT named William/Bill Clinton.
If this film was being made with the assassination of President Durling, President Ryan, President Somebody-Or-Other-Made-Up-Name, no one would be raising an eyebrow and you know it. This 'hit piece' is being made using the real life name of the current sitting President of the USA, George W Bush! The comparison you are using to support your argument simply does not hold water.
Only one word for that last statement of yours...LUDICROUS!!! You spout off phony nonsense like this and expect it to be accepted as fact? Dabbing at mixing fiction and reality again, are you? Pathetic!
"In all my life, I have never seen such vile hate that is now spewing from liberals."
"No question about their desires for President Bush; desire so intense they cannot contain it. . .hide it or by truth. . .deny it."
It is disturbing indeed. And you are right, cricket, there is no hiding of their hatred whether on lefty sites, opeds or 'equal time' appearances on MSM, or from the Democratic politicos.
Yes and no. Yes, it was based on Clinton the candidate for president. But, no, it wasn't a "bust". The movie portrayed Clinton as a flawed but loveable rogue. It wasn't in the same league of nastiness as numerous movie portrayals of Republican presidents from Nixon to the present.
Does the movie end with several blinding flashes over the ME?
In response to gwbush.com during his first run for president, and in reference to the 1st Amendment, Gov. Bush said "There ought to be limits to freedom."
nor has he tried to silence criticism of him
Then there's the sidewalk in front of the governor's mansion, an historical place for protesters to express their views about the actions of whatever Texas governor was in office. On notice that some environmentalists planned a protest, Gov. Bush secretly reversed the policy of allowing protests and ordered that they be dispersed and arrested if they refuse, and many were. No charges were ever filed against them since they never broke a Texas state law.
It's all in the public record, so research before you claim I'm lying. It's not that I agree with the idiots in either case, I just believe in the 1st Amendment, especially when it comes to political speech.
aren't thinking of wannabe Prez Kerry who tried to shut down the Swifties and ban their book?
I never said that thought such as this is restricted to President Bush.
Because they name him it's somehow worse. I just can't get that logic.
Now, that statement I do buy. {{{shakin' my head}}}
Nothing you wrote supports your assertion, more like misdirection. If President Bush doesn't "allow" criticism of himself, what exactly do you think Code Pink, ANSWER, DU, Kos, Michael Moore, Soros, etc do 24/7? The man has received more criticism and vitriol than any other president, and it hasn't let up and won't stop anytime soon; if your statements were true none of this would be going on.
I have no problem with the statement of "there ought to be limits on freedom." Person A's freedom stops where it infringes on Person B's freedom. You don't have the freedom to yell "fire" in a theater, or joke about bombs at the airport, or drive recklessly down the street.
"all of the liberals" in Team America were not the Elected Head of State of the United States. Big difference.
Incitement to violence against even Bill Clinton is crossing the line for me.
Now, that statement I do buy.
LOL!!! Me too.
Don't these foreign countries have anything better to do than obsess over the U.S.? Are things that damned unimportant in their own countries?
I think this is a good thing, I mean it highlights the mental breakdown of the left and should be used as a campaign ad this fall.
Between the communist libs & the illegals, we are definitely outnumbered.
He's apparently had to tone back his instincts since becoming president. But his track record as governor is solidly proven. OTOH, he still enjoys herding those who disagree with him into "free speech zones" out of the way of the cameras.
I have no problem with the statement of "there ought to be limits on freedom."
I do when it applies to political satire, which is just about as old as our nation itself. Contributors to some of the best threads on FR would have been subject to prosecution during the Clinton years if we didn't have that freedom.
Limiting freedom doesn't sound quite as good when it's our own freedom, expressing our own point of view, that we're talking about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.