Just wondering if anyone else has an opinion about this pseudomentary about the assasination of President Bush and the aftermath. Via editing, they have made images of Bush himself being shot
http://www.time.com/time/arts/articl...533715,00.html
Just wondering if anyone else has an opinion about this pseudomentary about the assasination of President Bush and the aftermath. Via editing, they have made images of Bush himself being shot
http://www.time.com/time/arts/articl...533715,00.html
all politics aside, I don't understand why it has to be the present president... I feel they just have a wish/want for him to be killed...
it's not hard, nor uncommon, to create a 'fictional president of the future' and make it believable... and I think they just did this because it would get more attention this way...
I'd have had just as much a problem with this had it been Clinton, Kerry, etc... I just don't think it being too cool...
Totally agree, Tonichelle. I didn't like the Path to 9/11 which created fake scenes around real people, and I don't like this idea either, for the same reason. Besides, I don't think it's healthy to be putting ideas into people's heads with this sort of sensationalism.
ITA with Doris. Both about "Death of a President" and "Path to 9/11".
I don't remember Path to 9-11... obviously it was a made for tv 'documentary'?
I don't like it at all and think it should be squashed.
It is indeed a made-for-TV pseudo-documentary that ABC released this past weekend. The film heavily implies that Clinton was too distracted by the Monica affair to concentrate properly on the Al-Queda threat; it also as much as states that US could have captured Bin Laden in '93 if it weren't for silly bureaucrats. Many proffesionals who worked in the administration (Madeleine Albright, amabassadors, etc.) are painted as idiots who have no idea what the hell they are doing. Yet it is all shot in the docu-drama style which makes viewers subconsiously feel that what they're watching is "real".
Now, I am no fan of Clinton's foreign policy. However, this movie seems an unsubstantiated libel more than anything else.
That's what I've been saying. And the people on the Entertainment shows just seem too glad to show the pictures. That's scary.Originally Posted by Tonichelle
I had posted the 1st post on another board and was surprised by the reaction on that board. About 1/2 had not problem with a Bush assasination in a pseudo documentary. Those were typical responses from people who extremely anti-Bush.
As much as I don't like Bush, I don't think it's in good taste to fake the assasination of a real person. It's not about him, but how it would feel if I was Laura Bush, George & Barbara Bush or one of his kids.
As for the 'Path to 9/11', I refused to watch even a second of it. It tried to blame the current situation upon the mistakes made by the current and previous adminstrations. It totally oversimplifies what's going on - this crisis was started a long time ago - before the US became a superpower. Even the actors in the movie had doubts about the incidents they were asked to portray.
It's bad enough that Bush linked Iraq falsely to 9/11. I think it's crime that ABC aired this movie that was so false.
It's weird because I've heard nothing but good things about the docudrama... I saw bits and pieces, my dad watched the first half, not sure if they finished on Monday or not. Personally the only special I watched was the one that CBS showed, which aired 5 years ago and was made by the two brothers from... France? I thought that was the only unbiased one of the bunch.
As for Clinton, yes it was probably blown out of proportion, but I think the Monica Lewinsky 'scandal' brought EVERYONE's focus to the wrong thing... maybe we could have figured things out sooner, but who knows... the fact is America just flat wasn't ready and couldn't be ready. Who knew it'd be a 'little, out of the way' country would be able to pull something off. America - or maybe just the leadership - had gotten very cocky (for lack of a better term) thinking that we were immune to a lot of the goings on... and we finally found out just how much we're not...
it was a tragic wake up call....
but I'm getting off topic lol
ITA Toni...and a wake-up call many people still don't get.
I would feel the same if Bush were an orphan. For me, the most important thing is that films like this encourage the idea that assassination is a legitimate way to get rid of a president whom you think is disastrous. We had not only the assassination of JFK, it was followed in quick succession by the assassination of RFK, MLK and the 2 attempted assassinations of Ford and the attempted assassination of Reagan. I always felt there was a 'copycat' theme going on there, tying into as high levels of political polarization at the time. The idea for me in democracy is that you vote out people you disagree with, not wipe them out.
Toni, The reason I didn't like the PT/911 film is that I was following current events closely during the whole time the film discusses. Anyone who watched the news remembers that every time Clinton tried to do something about terrorism that became generally visible, there would be a large group of congresspeople and senators on the air claiming that Clinton was 'wagging the dog' and that this terrorism thing was just a distraction and a red herring. So to me, it looked like Clinton was interested in curbing terrorism and Congress was not. And curbing terrorism is hard to do for any president if he is not getting cooperation from Congress.
Also, I read Richard Clarke's book...and while he felt there were some things Clinton could have done better, he was very serious and focussed about terrorism. And Clarke should know, he was there for all of it. Finally, as Ptichka said, the whole business about we could have gotten Osama in 1993 is just made up garbage, in many many ways. The whole Albright/Berger business was a complete libel, although US libel laws are very loose if you are a public person.
Also ABC originally claimed the 'docudrama' was based on the 911 commission report, which it wasn't, because the report laid things out about as I have represented them.
They may be sued by American Airlines for inaccuracies about them, too.
I would not be surprised if they were sued by either or all of Albright, Berger or Clinton as well, especially as the film was aired in New Zealand and the UK which have much lower standards for libel for public people.
So it was kind of a mess.
I agree the filmmakers probably used Bush to create buzz, but I think they also wanted it to hit home better than fiction ever could. At least it's not suggesting that someone actually try to take out Bush.
Like it or not, I don't think it should be quashed. Freedom of speech means sometimes hearing and seeing things that you don't like.
I'm not surprised that some one used Bush as a "fictional" victim. It was about thirty years ago that someone wrote a book called "Should We Tell the President?" -- and the issue was whether the "fictional" president (given the name of Edward M. Kennedy) about an assassination plot. It made news because it was originally sent to the same publishing house that had hired Jaqueline Kennedy Onassis as an editor (she quit shortly thereafter)
Yes but freedom of speech also means I can sit here and call it distasteful, wrong, and so on... I'm not saying quash it... but I'm not saying I agree with it either...
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks