Should we let Bill Frist & Co. change the rules of the senate ?

Actually the line was:"So this is how LIBERTY dies - with thunderous applause."Here's an article about it.
People will read whatever they want into things, I tell you.
They think that Lucas is trying to send some message about 9/11.

quote:

---

Star Wars III: Crisis in America

​

In the Media Hollywood Strikes Back
Rolls Out Big-Budget 9/11 Truth Movie.

​

by John J. Albanese
May 22, 2005

​

I couldn’t believe my eyes. Star Wars III — Revenge of the Sith is a 9/11 truth movie.

​

(For those who do not want to know the plot of this film, read no further.)

​

It came as a complete surprise. My wife and I went to see this film somewhat reluctantly, and with some misplaced sense of obligatory nostalgia for a franchise that harkened back to our youth. How could we NOT? But, we fully expected to be moderately entertained at best, with perhaps some of the familiar lingering disappointment we felt over the last two installments in the series.

​

What we found instead was a big-budget major blockbuster of a film that had me literally squirming in my seat with the desire to jump up and scream at the audience, Are you people getting this!!!?

​

Yes, this movie goes where no major commercial film has gone before. This film dares to suggest that 9/11 was an inside job.

​

We have all heard the rumors that this film draws some interesting parallels between the Bush administration and the dark side of government depicted in this film. Seeking to strengthen security during wartime, Chancellor Palpatine persuades the Senate to give up civil liberties.

​

"So this is how liberty dies to thunderous applause," Senator Amidala laments.

​

There are the obvious lines.

​

Darth Vader: If you’re not with me, you’re my enemy.

​

Samuel L. Jackson emotionally declaring that the Chancellor controls the Senate and Judges, and is therefore too powerful and dangerous to the republic.

​

And it appears that the Press agrees:

​

Revenge of the Sith," it turns out, can also be seen as a cautionary tale for our time -- a blistering critique of the war in Iraq, a reminder of how democracies can give up their freedoms too easily, and an admonition about the seduction of good people by absolute power. Some film critics suggest it could be the biggest anti-Bush blockbuster since "Fahrenheit 9/11." - Washington Post

​

George Lucas himself makes no mystery of his sentiments:

​

"In ancient Rome, 'why did the senate, after killing Caesar, turn around and give the government to his nephew?' Lucas said. 'Why did France, after they got rid of the king and that whole system, turn around and give it to Napoleon? It's the same thing with Germany and Hitler.

​

"You sort of see these recurring themes where a democracy turns itself into a dictatorship, and it always seems to happen kind of in the same way, with the same kinds of issues, and threats from the outside, needing more control. A democratic body, a senate, not being able to function properly because everybody's squabbling, there's corruption."

​

It is just one of those re-occurring things. I hope this doesn't come true in our country. Maybe the film will awaken people to the situation of how dangerous it is.' - George Lucas

​

But is this all the film tells us?

​

It seems that the critics are all but ignoring the obvious 9/11 parallels.

​

This film very clearly depicts an attack upon the Republic by a splinter group within the government, upon orders by the Chancellor. Yes, it is an inside job.

​

After this attack, and with the Jedi Knight’s enclave still burning in the distant horizon of the Republic’s capital, the Chancellor convenes an emergency session of the Senate, which seems eerily similar to Bush’s post-9/11 address to Congress, in which he vows to tirelessly hunt down the culprits, and speaks of the need for empire - as a means towards an end — as a means towards attaining Freedom and Security.

​

But, or course, the real culprits have the reigns of power. And the critics will not touch it. As always, it is left the the American public to connect the dots.

---

A slight correction: he ran on a compassionate conservative platform.Basically it's the Democratic platform from 1968.
JK.Anyway, I've seen video clips of Gore speaking and BUsh speaking during the 2000 campaign, back to back. Their speeches were nearly identical, at least in rhetoric.Hmm, almost sounds like 2004 in reverse.
Rhetorically, Kerry and Bush were opposites, but policy-wise, they weren't that different (except of issues that really matter like gay marriage!)I get really depressed whenever people start complaining about Republicans, then I start doing it, then I look around, and the only alternative is the Democrats.