The fact that this talls of "Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld" clearly shows this is a politically motivated article. The planning of 9/11 was years long and Bush had only taken office less than 8 months before the attack. 9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with Bush's policies and to say it did is to deny the facts in evidence and the historical timeline that shows planning of this attack started under Clinton.

No more so than what happened with movies during the Cold War.

"9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with Bush's policies"

I think it affected his foreign policy, in the form of our, well, fighting across Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention a heightened sensitivity to any and all activity in the region.

(Again, to be clear, I'm NOT saying there was a truther-esque conspiracy, or any of that nonsense...but come on, Draug, you can't say that 9/11 didn't affect the Bush Presidency's policies abroad--again, Afghanistan, Iraq, that whole "Axis of Evil" comment"--and at home in the form of the Patriot Act. That'd be like saying the Civil War had no bearing on Lincoln's policies--like Lincoln, Bush didn't start the Civil War, but likewise, both men had their presidencies defined by their wars.)

You are being disingenuous. You know damn well I meant 9/11's terrorists weren't influenced by George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney's policies. Don't be a fuckwad. The article specifically mentioned those three as the *source* of the discontent behind 9/11. The article was at best misinformed and at worst an intentional, politically motivated, maligning of a former President and his staff.

According to former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill (and some others), the Bush regime and the neocons in particular started planning for war against Iraq immediately after the inauguration. 9/11 just made it politically feasible.

And as for the terrorists not being motivated by the policies of the Bush family and its loyal servants, do remember that the occupation of Saudi Arabia, the first Gulf War, and the economic blockade of Iraq (which killed hundreds of thousands of people) were all chief among the terrorists' grievances - and all were started by Bush I and the people who would eventually fill all the top slots under Bush II. So yes, those people were a serious causative influence.

Whelp, guess I'm waiting till this new Star Trek is on Netflix or something. Terrorists In Space sounds extremely uninteresting.

Blah blah blah... More and more you come off as a conspiracy theorist of the highest order, Tolstoy. The planning of 9/11 was done during Clinton's administration and Saudi was never occupied. I went over there working for Parsons to help with the engineering cleanup after the conflict ended and the Saudi people and government welcomed us with open arms. Can you say you were there either during or right after Desert Shield/Desert Storm?

Typical Tolstoy.

Actually, Invictus, it combines Wrath of Kahn with a touch of Insurrection and is a very enjoyable film. One of the best in the series.

Hm. Those are easily the only two Star Trek movies that are actually good movies and not just good Star Trek movies. May have to give it a shot.

WoK is my favorite and it used to be First Contact was #2, but this may challenge that position. We shall have to see over repeated viewings and time.

Wow I was totally thinking of First Contact. Insurrection blew. I rescind my previous post.

"You are being disingenuous. You know damn well I meant 9/11's terrorists weren't influenced by George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney's policies."

No, I didn't know that, I honestly took that in a different way, the way I wrote, I promise.

"Don't be a fuckwad."

THAT I can't promise. ;)

"According to former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill (and some others), the Bush regime and the neocons in particular started planning for war against Iraq immediately after the inauguration. 9/11 just made it politically feasible."

1. Wow, I thought Paul O'Neill was an outfielder for the Yankees back in the day! :)

2. Are you merely arguing a causative case against Bush, or a more truther-laden angle?

You can tell my attitude towards the latter "theory" already, I'm sure.

"Whelp, guess I'm waiting till this new Star Trek is on Netflix or something. Terrorists In Space sounds extremely uninteresting."

Oh no, trust me, Invictus--if you like Star Trek and ESPECIALLY if you like TOS, the Kirk era stuff, you'll want to see this one on the big screen...

Saw it three times, three straight days (as my father and I had a rare father/son moment of agreement at how awesome it was and so he went back to see it a 2nd time and I went for my 3rd straight time) and it was great each time...BETTER the 2nd time, actually, because the 1st time...

...well, if you like Star Trek II and VI, let's just say it hits so close to home (ESPECIALLY with II) that at times I was taken out of the movie the 1st time watching and just stunned at how closely (if admittedly competently and effectively in terms of theme and tone) they paralleled some scenes and moments from those flicks.

2009's Star Trek was a reintroduction to a new, rougher version of these characters--

In Star Trek Into Darkness, they ARE the characters. Period.

Pine's no longer just arrogant and brash, he has that mix of humanity and confidence Shatner's Kirk had...

Quinto's Spock looks and sounds like the Spock of old, dry wit, logic, ears and all...

Karl Urban practically CHANNELS DeForest Kelley from beyond the grave, he sounds and even looks like Kelley's McCoy so much it's really amazing, he steals every scene he's in, a fantastic performance, he might be the best of all the new crew in capturing the spirit of the old crew...

Zoe Saldana's Uhura actually is active and does more than work the radio (another good thing about this Trek, literally ALL of the 7 main cast members get to save the day/a fellow main character's life AT LEAST once in the film, so gone are the days of Uhura, Sulu, and Chekov being glorified extras sometimes, there's a great scene where in the space of a few minutes Kirk saves Scotty, Chekov saves both of them, Kirk saves even more people and then Uhura and Spock save Kirk, it does a good job giving everyone something to do.)

And, of course...Simon Pegg is Simon Pegg. Namely--he's awesome and, like Karl Urban, his Scotty steals every scene, he's comic relief but never in the bumbling, unbearable Jar Jar Binks sort of way, he's just a funny guy...

Just as good old James Doohan's Scotty was always a fun guy on the show.

And then of course...Benedict Cumberbatch is Benedict Cumberbatch--

And when you're playing the most iconic villain in all of Star Trek, in a role made famous by another man in a legendary movie, you HAVE to be top flight...and he IS...

And best of all, he's just enough Khan that he's recognizably Khan and yet different enough so that it's not at all a copy/paste; in fact, for what's maybe 20-30 minutes or so at least, he's not even an enemy, really, he's almost an ally, and whereas the old Khan had a Paradise Lost/Moby Dick/King Lear motive to his revenge plot, the new Khan is sympathetic and complex for a whole other reason, and it WORKS...

It works in terms of plausibly getting him into the film, and it works in terms of the overall theme of family in the work.

I almost NEVER give such a glowing review of a film...I'm giving it to this flick.

Trust me, give it a chance in theatres--even if you don't like it half as much as I do, chances are you'll probably like it (and it IS the kind of movie that's just better on the big screen.)

"Saudi was never occupied."

Osama bin Laden strongly disagreed, and said so. So did many of the prominent clerics of the kingdom (and elsewhere). If hundreds of thousands of troops from, say, Bangladesh were traipsing around the United States - even if they were on their best behavior - a great many Americans would take strong offense, and I'd be willing to wager a substantial sum that some would be ticked off enough to engage in terrorist acts against the 'non-occupier'.

"Can you say you were there either during or right after Desert Shield/Desert Storm?"

You weren't really "there" either - aside from not speaking the local language, I imagine you were also kept largely kept apart from the general public (as is the SOP in The Kingdom for foreign workers). You saw the face the Saudis wanted you to see - rich, stable, grateful, and (I imagine) generous.

"Actually, Invictus, it combines Wrath of Kahn with a touch of Insurrection and is a very enjoyable film. One of the best in the series."

&

"WoK is my favorite and it used to be First Contact was #2, but this may challenge that position. We shall have to see over repeated viewings and time."

1. I think it's more TWOK mixed with TUC (Star Trek VI) but I guess I can see where you might see a bit of Insurrection...though VI is so much better than INS that really I prefer to say it's II mixed with VI, which leads me to.

2. I'd rank the movies (because now I must)

1. The Wrath of Khan (Obviously)
2. The Undiscovered Country (Great story, great sendoff, and SHAKESPEARE!) :D
3. First Contact (Great conclusion to the whole Picard/Borg drama of TNG)
4. Tie: The Voyage Home & Star Trek Into Darkness (Good, GOOD movies)
6. Star Trek 2009 (Rough around the edges, but as a fun joyride/reintroduction it works)
7. The Search For Spock (Not bad, just has steep competition...and old NCC-1701! :O )
8. The Motion Picture (Good idea, but 2001: A Trek Odyssey this is not...hard as it tries)
9. Nemesis (Some good ideas again, but even WORSE execution than TMP)
10. Insurrection (A BAD Trek film, not better so much as it's "less worse" than...)
11. Generations (Which KILLS KIRK & DESTROYS THE NCC-1701-D TERRIBLY...)
12. The Final Frontier (Awful movie AND it insults everyone not Kirk AND it nearly killed the whole franchise..."What does God need with a starship?" That's the ONE moment of awesomeness, Kirk saying that line, and then Spock repeating it...so there, if you haven't seen it, I've just given you the best part of it, that one and only line, so just let that pile of trash rot...ugh!)

Final Frontier's not that bad. Better than Insurrection and Generations, not that that says much.

seam them up Spotty ........