Letters to the Editor
-
Bullshit
Bush has been partly responsible for a historic decimation of the U.S. Constitution and for an unnecessary war that has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, but he did so because he is/was a man of profound personal conviction, and misunderestimated intelligence, who firmly believed he was doing the right thing for the future of his country.
I call bullshit.
Bush invaded Iraq because he wanted to long before he got into office. 9/11 gave him a cowed populace and even more compliant than usual media.
And also, Bush has been wholly responsible for fucking up this country, not partly. The buck stops there, no matter what idiot of the moment is sitting in that seat.
-
Idiot of the moment
"Bush invaded Iraq because he wanted to long before he got into office. 9/11 gave him a cowed populace and even more compliant than usual media."
All true. But it was not just shrub, personally. He was merely the perfect, easily manipulated and shaped idiot who just happened to be "electable". A cipher, whose dominant positive trait was that people liked him, or could be taught to, whose family is at the heart and center of the financial cabal who quietly rejoice (away from the media) that [and I'm intuitiing here based on the obvious, and my 'gut' - hey, it works for them!] "this terrible war (that none of us and no one we know will ever have to actually participate in, is still very very good for our Carlyle (and many other) holdings. Sad as it is, (Barb still hates to sully her beautiful mind about all this) those hundreds of thousands of deaths and dismemberments, especially the innocent women & children, have . . . hmmm, actually solidified our geo-political empire! And, we also own the US Senate, the Supreme Court, the House, and we are militarily superior across the mid-east, and THE WORLD! Yes we RULE THE WORLD!!
BWAH-HAH-HA-HA-HA . . . . . . .
-
"Death of a President" is weak and unimaginitive.
I saw the film the only way most Americans will ever see this film - swiped by a friend off the Internet. It was immensely disappointing.
I lived through the Kennedy assassination, and I know how it devastated America and changed many things. It was the event that first made the public question gun ownership, and which made the gun owners and gun lobby more militant and defensive. It caused entertainment to be censored heavily for violence for the first time, with compensating increase in sex to keep the customers coming in - a trend which reversed to extreme violence and little sex or affection in the last few decades.
The filmmakers had no imagination or understanding of how this event would have affected America. Since Vice President Cheney has mostly been closeted and out of the public eye, how would the nation react to this nearly unknown man suddenly becoming President? Would Congress accept him, or would worries about his unstable (and probably non-existent) heart call for him to step down? And that would raise the Speaker of the House to the Presidency...and who the hell is he, the nation would ask?
None of this was considered by the filmmakers. All we had was a tired police procedural with the wrong man being arrested. Compared to the effect of a Presidential assassination like that of Kennedy, this was like an atomic bomb dropping, with the effects of a Texas chili fart.
It's tempting to say that it's the British filmmakers' unfamiliarity with America, but didn't they live through the agony of Princess Diana's death? Where were they when that happened, watching old "Red Dwarf" episodes?
-
i agree with no name given
this statement "but [bush] did so because he is/was a man of profound personal conviction, and misunderestimated intelligence, who firmly believed he was doing the right thing for the future of his country" is ridiculous. name one profound personal conviction bush has demonstrated with any degree of consistency at all. anyone? why did we go in to iraq?
there hasn't even been a consistent rationale for that. if the central piece of idiocy of his presidency can't even be said to have a consistent rationale how can he be said to be a man of profound personal conviction?
-
Death of a President
What's the point in making this movie? Your blurb above says it I'm sure
however, a person who plunges the whole world into chaos deserves very little sympathy or empathy. Frankly, I put most of the blame on Barbara
and George H.W.Bush. They knew their son was incompetent but power does corrupt doesn't it? Corporations and their HUNGER for power it is all
consuming and self-indulgent.
-
What's the contradiction?
Between
"Bush invaded Iraq because he wanted to long before he got into office. 9/11 gave him a cowed populace and even more compliant than usual media."
And:
O'Hehir saying Bush was doing what he was sure was right for his country?
It sounds more like you're agreeing that Bush was so sure it was the right idea that he wanted to do it long before 9/11.
-
Death of a President: somehow boring
I don't quite agree with the implied sentiment in the film and in O'Hehir's review that, although Bush has really screwed up the US, the fact that he has a good heart and has been sincere in his convictions (and that his speechwriter adores him) somehow present a paradox that the film is unwraveling. Also, O'Hehir's coda about how Bush's death would plunge the nation further into a police state contributes to the misreading of anti-Bush protestors and, given the plotline of the film, is completely irrelevant in terms of either how the film develops or what protestors actually want from the administration.
The film itself feeds on this anti-protestor attitude. We are shown protestors who apparently motivated solely by hatred are are not making rational demands of the President or government. At one point the camera focuses in on a woman shouting "Chicago hates Bush! Chicago hates Bush!" I'm not saying that protesters are pure in heart, but by portraying this aspect as the driving motivation, the film creates a false disparity between the administration and the protesters? Why don't we see this kind of irrationality on the part of administration officials or the police? It's certainly there to be found, if looked for.
I also think that an assassination of President Bush would lead to a far more dramatic aftermath than is shown in the film. The film decides to turn into a whodunit for its second half, and to be blunt, it is not a terribly interesting whodunit. Think back to the aftermath of the Rodney King verdict, and think of how much hate fills the airways these days. I would wager that a political assassintion would lead to a lot of rioting and intense anger on the parts of a lot of people.
I wouldn't really recommend this film. The controversy surrounding it is much greater in scope than the film itself deserves. There have been far better mockumentaries on other topics in the past.