Assassination chic returns

posted at 12:26 pm on August 31, 2006 by Bryan

Director Gabriel Range puts a moonbat fantasy on the big screen: the assassination of President Bush. It’s debuting at the Toronto Film Festival on its way to television in the UK.

Set around October 2007, President Bush is assassinated as he leaves the Sheraton Hotel in Chicago.

Death of a President, shot in the style of a retrospective documentary, looks at the effect the assassination of Bush has on America in light of its ‘War on Terror’.

The 90 minutes feature explores who could have planned the murder, with a Syrian-born man wrongly put in the frame.

That last part is key to understanding how moonbatty this film is. Its director, the aforementioned Mr. Range, has a history of making alt-future films from the conspiracy theory perspective. Look him up on IMDB and you get the following film titles:

The Man Who Broke Britain (2004) (TV)
Supersleuths: The Menendez Murders (2003) (TV)
The Day Britain Stopped (2003) (TV)
The Great Dome Robbery (2002)

The Man Who Britain’s synopsis reads like this:

A devastating terrorist strike wipes out much of Saudi Arabia’s oil production; the same day a trader of Saudi origin disappears from UK investment bank Sun First Credit (SFCB). Managers soon discover the missing trader, Samir Badr, has built up crippling debts, multiplied a hundred fold by the attacks in Saudi. SFCB, once the toast of the city, is suddenly heading for bankruptcy, taking a whole raft of other banks down with it. The resulting market crash and banking crisis will push Britain and the US into a 21st Century recession: pension funds are slashed, unemployment soars and the housing market collapses. Following the discovery that Badr has committed suicide, a new Al-Qa’eda tape surfaces, in which Bin Laden appears to claim responsibility for the financial turmoil. Suspicion grows that Badr was an Islamic extremist who deliberately sabotaged the bank. As the authorities and the media launch a massive investigation into the apparent Al-Qaeda assault on the pillars of the Western Economy, an alternative explanation emerges. Could greed and incompetence be the real cause of the collapse of Britain’s economy?

So, if the summary is accurate, what at first looks like a devastating terror/economic attack turns out to be a combination of home-grown inside job and stupidity. Is Gabriel Range a 9-11 Truther? Well, wrt The Man Who Broke Britain…

According to the BBC’s own publication, Radio Times, this mockumentary was commissioned by the BBC Public Affairs Unit, and was “designed to reveal the fragility of financial trading systems”. To achieve this end, it presented a series of faked interviews with, amongst others, the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer. They purported to explain how one man had “sabotaged” the world’s financial systems, causing the downfall first of his own investment bank employer, then the international banking system, and finally the economy of Britain.

Most of the programme consisted of an extended red herring about a Saudi national trading derivatives in the City. At the very end, however, it emerged that the villain was instead his English boss. The boss had modified contracts intended to protect the financial position of their employer, the fictional Sun First Credit Bank (‘SFCB’): he added a clause that rendered the protection null and void in the unlikely event that oil prices exceeded $75 per barrel. And he did so, we were told, because such contracts were cheaper; the boss expected the savings to increase his personal bonus. The programme drew the conventional anti-business conclusion: financial greed was the cause of the catastrophe, and more government regulation was needed to control it.

That’s got Halliburton and Enron written all over it. And then there’s this, from that same review of TMWBB:

But vigilance is also necessary to prevent terrorism from being used as an excuse. The Man Who Broke Britain illustrated the vested interests that both media and government have in scare-mongering. Fear helps the mass media to boost sales; seeming tough on terrorism gives governments an excuse to increase their powers. Fear itself can be a danger. But it is one we must resist. As Thomas Jefferson rightly observed, “A society that will trade a little order for a little freedom will lose both, and deserve neither”.

That’s the left’s hammer quote used to bludgeon anyone who supports any sort of security measure, no matter how reasonable. It’s a tell that the writer thinks the whole war on terrorism is a trumped up scare-fest, and here we see the writer deploying it to agree with Gabriel Range, director of the film in which President Bush is murdered. The quote itself is usually attributed to Ben Franklin, but never mind that. The actual quote reads:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Which, as I said back in January, is a bit more nuanced than the version lefties usually use.

Verdict: Gabriel Range is just another lefty fantasist who’s hoping President Bush gets killed. He joins loudmouth radio shocker Randi Rhodes, part of the Florida Democrat party and dozens of other unhinged leftwingers in this fantasy.

This is where we are in the defense of civilization right now–fighting off actual terrorists slaughtering innocents for Islam and Western intellectual terrorists who just can’t stand the thought that a Republican is president. So they wish him dead.

By the way, Garrison Keillor–another government-funded leftwinger like Range (whose films show on the BBC)– wants Bush’s supporters dead, too. It’s a Lake Wobegon Jihad, kids.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


I thought that if you made threats against a president that was grounds for arrest, fantasy or not. Maybe I’m wrong on that one but it seems like if a “right wing film maker”-don’t think they exist but did such a thing during the Clinton years they would be drawn and quartered.

Catie96706 on August 31, 2006 at 12:30 PM

Bread and circuses.

Anwyn on August 31, 2006 at 12:31 PM

I expect a detailed, definitive, link-filled condemnation from Glenn Greenwald on the issure of the return of assassination chic most any moment now …

SisterToldjah on August 31, 2006 at 12:36 PM

The director is British. US law doesn’t apply there.

Bryan on August 31, 2006 at 12:36 PM

It’s amazing how aggressive and violent the pacifists and anti-war activists are getting these days.

High Desert Wanderer on August 31, 2006 at 12:47 PM

I wonder how many conservatives turn off “Prairie Home Companion” thanks to Keillor and his hateful politics? I just can’t enjoy the show knowing that behind the pleasant voice is a guy with a severe case of BDS.

And I loved “Lake Woebegon Days,” too, darn it.

Slublog on August 31, 2006 at 12:49 PM

When they are pressed, and they surely will be, let’s see who among the Democraps will distance themselves from this trash?

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on August 31, 2006 at 12:52 PM

The director is British. US law doesn’t apply there.

It will be when he shows up to collect all of his EMMY awards.

Oh you say he’s not nominated!! Oh No??? Hardi Har Har Har.

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on August 31, 2006 at 12:55 PM

Just send in some Special Ops Forces and take the director out.
No need to ponder it.
Quick and Dead.

Kramer on August 31, 2006 at 1:00 PM

This conservative turned the dial permanently after Keillor’s unhinged rant following the ’04 election.

As for this disgusting propaganda movie, there was a time when the British would have drawn and quartered anyone attempting such an uncivilized act long before it could have even gotten off the ground.

Keillor claims to be afraid of those of us who actually believe in the ten commandments as being fundamental to our very existence, as do all secular humanists, pagans, atheists, relativistic moralists and post-modern univesity professors in the Western World today.

All of them have stepped onto the slippery slope and gravity is working on them at the constant rate of 32 feet per second per second as they plummet to the lowest of lows. It is not choice, it is death. A culture of death. No matter how you slice it. Never a reference to life, just death. Death of unborn babies, death of the helpless, death by reality or death by fantasy and now the fantasy death of a sitting POTUS.

“There ought to be a law…”

If they keep it up, someday there will be a law.

Or the Law of Unintended Consequences will catch up to them.

Peasants and pitchforks,


The Machine on August 31, 2006 at 1:01 PM

I’m rather disgusted.

I have no doubt that this will be red meat to some on the other side. And, I suppose, there will be someone either in the newsgroups, dailykos or du, to let out a “yeah, baby” over the idea.

I remember Tip O’Neal and Reagan remaining friends after 5 pm, no matter what happened during the day. I simply cannot imagine that happening with Peolsi or Reid and Bush, today.

georgej on August 31, 2006 at 1:08 PM

I thought that if you made threats against a president that was grounds for arrest, fantasy or not.

This is wishful thinking, not a threat. It’s disgusting, but not criminal.

Pablo on August 31, 2006 at 1:09 PM

Hm, Garrison Keilor’s solution is to cut healthcare for Republicans to help the poor and the destitute. Nice. Do we call that compassionate socialism? I guess in his world “some are more equal than others”.

CP on August 31, 2006 at 2:05 PM

It all comes down to “intent.” All this trash needs to do, as well as followers, is claim that it is simply “political rhetoric with no intent to act upon.”

Personally, I’d say this is enough to investigate and should his foot hit US soil he should be arrested and interrogated.

Even if the director himself had no intention of carrying out such an act, I’d say that this is a pretty damn fine example of “inciting violence.” (Especially with the current situation in the world.) Wacky libs get ideas, and the mid-east gets pissed that the US is always “framing them.”

But once again, just claim “I had no intent…” I am with the Machine with forgetting this “intention” crap and going with the law of consequences.

mdconservative on August 31, 2006 at 2:11 PM

Creative bankruptcy.
This guy has gone to the conspiracy well once too often and now apparently believes that portraying the murder of a sitting President is just fine. BDS to the ninth degree.

labwrs on August 31, 2006 at 2:49 PM

In light of the Assassination Chic nonsense, what we need in response is Conservative Chic.

Michelle, Mary K, Bethany, etc for setting a good example.

Lawrence on August 31, 2006 at 4:56 PM

aADS at its apex now – where to next?

Entelechy on August 31, 2006 at 6:22 PM

I read yesterday that the Canadians were upset at a decrease in American tourists to their country. Gee…I wonder why more Americans don’t visit there. Could it be that more than half don’t feel welcomed??

gary on August 31, 2006 at 7:44 PM

This is sick, in poor taste, and dangerous.

I cannot remember – can you — when there has ever before been a portrayal of an American president’s assassination unless it was fictional or it was historical (JFK). Maybe this moonbat thinks that since he is presenting it as a retrospective that takes him off the hook.

It won’t happen, but the Left should thoroughly repudiate this crap immediately and loudly.

Labamigo on September 1, 2006 at 10:26 AM

Death of a President, shot in the style of a retrospective documentary, looks at the effect the assassination of Bush has on America in light of its ‘War on Terror’.

Not much of an effect, I’d guess. Cheney might not shoot from the hip based on personality judgments as much as Bush, but he’s certainly of the same school of thought: “Act on uncertain threats, justification is a PR issue.”

Ugh, and not even Republicans want Ted “Porky” Stevens to be 2 heartbeats away from the Presidency. That’s just wrong. I really doubt anyone on the right or the left really wants Bush dead, as much as those on the left proclaim it to be their fantasy.

Mark Jaquith on September 1, 2006 at 11:22 AM