President Bush 'assassinated' in new TV docudrama

I agree with Evan. On the surface it's in bad taste, but more details needed. A link would be great.

 

Here's a link on it ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5302598.stm

Bad taste or not, reflect on the fact that no US companay would have been even able to begin such a project without attracting FBI scrutiny and perhaps even arrest for proceeding with it. To some I'm sure that's a "good" thing, but to me the fact that trying to do this project in the US could lead to arrest is excessively repressive.

But then free speech in this country has always meant you can say anything you want only if I agree with it, and I can say anything I want
without restriction.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

I think since it's a foreign company making it, he's fair game. I suspect dbermanmd wouldn't complain about a fictional American show depicting the assassination of Jacques Chirac.

I think it would be in very bad taste if it were a US production company. I also don't think they'd even get past the initial pitch, much less into production in the US, so they wouldn't have a chance to be investigated by the FBI. No executive producer in this country is dumb enough to do that.

As for the premise of the show itself, I think it's deeply flawed. I doubt if any Arabs other than Saudis have been allowed within 5 miles of Bush recently, and I think he would be far more likely to be assassinated by a white, American-born nutcase than an Arab.

 

i think it's about as worthless as that smallpox outbreak docudrama and there was some other one that i can't remember.

 

I think anyone knows from my posts that I have absolutely no regard for Bush and his policies and I'm put off by this.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Aug 31 2006, 03:35 PM) [snapback]312370[/snapback]</div>

That's two of us...

 

That's rich coming from someone who in a prior post just put words in someone's mouth, and routinely says things like:

Also, I only made a guess as to your reaction, so if you would honestly be just as outraged by a DocuDrama featuring the assassination of Saddam Hussein or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and post on PriusChat telling us about your outrage, then I stand corrected.

 

Well, first I wouldn't call it a docudrama. It's a work of fiction. Docudrama implies a perhaps fictionalized account of real events. ("All the president's Men", "Missiles of October", and even god forbid "JFK"). This is a piece of fiction presented documentary style to advance a particular hypothesis about American culture. (Perhaps to advance a particular political point of view. I don't know having not seen it) Am I turned of by it? Not particulary, although one has to wonder why it had to be set in 2007 with Bush president to make the cultural points they want to make. Wouldn't have taken much to extrapolate to 2009 and make it a newly elected president. Heck, they could have even gone the "Commander in Chief" route -- Bush leaves office on some context (he doesn't have to die) and Cheney becomes president. I might pay to watch that version.

 

I turned the TV off years ago, partly because I could no longer tell the difference between the show and the advertising, and partly because of the violence. Why is this 'death' any different than the several hundred other 'deaths' on TV every day?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 31 2006, 10:50 AM) [snapback]312180[/snapback]</div>

There's a news item about this in today's Guardian (London).

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1862524,00.html


I certainly think that the drama is probably in poor taste but they excuse themselves by saying that they're trying to make a political point.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 1 2006, 09:11 AM) [snapback]312701[/snapback]</div>

Disgusting, yes. As are many of the numerous Hollywood productions which wallow in excessive violence of every kind, often glorifying in it. A large section of the public on both sides of the Atlantic evidently want this sort of stuff. In past times, great crowds assembled to watch public executions, burnings, bear baiting and all manner of blood "sports". The descendants of the people in those crowds are now with us, and many haven't changed their tastes much.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tleonhar @ Aug 31 2006, 03:46 PM) [snapback]312375[/snapback]</div>

I agree, and I am NO Bush fan. This story is said to be fiction and could have been told without the use of our Presidents likeness. Every Democrat should condem this movie, NOW !!!! before the Bush machine starts to blame us for the movie, which he will.

 

How about Character assassination like telling lies that Clinton Gave Nukes to North Korea? While not a physical death, you are certainly in no position to comment on others motives. Come clean, post your links.

Either that or acknowledge you were blowing it out your chutney chute!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(triphop @ Sep 1 2006, 05:09 PM) [snapback]312904[/snapback]</div>

'Ere yer go:

Card: North Korea Got Nukes on Clinton's Watch

Of course the evidence will be deemed inadmissable. Not my problem!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Denny_A @ Sep 2 2006, 01:31 AM) [snapback]312947[/snapback]</div>

No, thats not what he said. He specifically claimed that Clinton GAVE nukes to NK. Terminological Inexactitude is the term that Churchill commonly used for lying - its certainly applicable in this case. DBermanmd is BSer and needs to man up.

PS. Don't post links to Freepers here and not expect to considered a ditto-head. Those dudes got some serious terminological inexactitude problems of their own.