"I'm surprised that only a few people here considered the attacks as religious, rather than political..."

Religion may have been a used as a motivation for the troops, the attacks themselves however were designed to achieve secular and political goals. Though the land may be designated 'holy' getting people out of it is a secular and political activity. A truly religious attack would consist merely of praying.

I'm afraid I must disagree. It is clear to me that religion is a tool used by the puppet-masters to control the puppets. Much like racial inequality is used in America to distract from the true problem of economic and class inequality. And EVEN if the people at the top were true believers, my point still stands, their methods are political and secular. Religion may be the context but the realities of the trillions of dollars, the oil and the secular control of the world those resources command make the context of 'religion' hollow and transparent, fit only for mass consumption on the 'news'.

I think part of it is laziness combined with our cultural values. Money is the Deus Ex Machina. Rich characters can do anything, have anything, go anywhere, etc..

Obviously the relevant info here is whose name is on the lease.

But beyond that I say move. Let's face it, based on the fact that you gave your bed to your roommate while you slept on the sofa when the obvious solution was to have the roommate sleep on the sofa, you don't have the personal skills to handle these people. The fact that they approached you and asked you to move indicates they are aware of their ability to handle you. So unless you're going to change who you are, you'd better just keep being the doormat you seem to be.

However as others have said, based on the lease agreement I'd bet you could stay.

The important thing to keep in mind that newspaper investigation that Mr. Craig claims was pressuring him HAD NOT published anything about him. The paper received reports of the Senator's homosexuality from multiple sources who would not go on the record, the paper contacted the Senator about the reports, the Senator denied them, the paper killed the story as not having legs. The story the paper eventually published came out AFTER he got caught and plead guilty.

What court is going to take as an excuse: "I was afraid of the consequences of my actions" as a reason to vacate a plea?

I agree... Except his constituents may not feel the same way, the conservative homophobes the majority of them may be. Also, considering the senator's stance against homosexuals and for family-values, even though his crime that he plead guilty to may not warrant his removal, his hypocrisy certainly does not serve his constituents or his party. Remember, he wasn't removed from office, he resigned.

No railroading here. He plead guilty, he chose to resign.

"I wouldn't want to be the party that says we're going to have 130,000 troops from July on."

Ya, well I don't want to be in the party that folded to the most corrupt, illegal, immoral administration ever!

History isn't going to just say Bush did this or that. History will point out that the people who knew it was wrong and were in a position to do something about it did nothing. And why? Because they thought doing nothing would help them politically?

Disgusting and Shameful Dems.

As per The Daily Show, it appears the the General has been echoing Bush as well. Despite his claim that he wrote his report himself.

You know, I'm a high-school drop out. ex-navy, no experience in diplomacy, foreign relations, national security or history. Yet when the surge was first announced I said he'll raise the troop level, then reduce it to the current level and claim progress.

What I want to know is how can this ass-much engage in such blatantly obvious BS behavior that I can see through it?

COME ON MSM!!!!!

"Bush likely believes that there is nobody more qualified for the highest law enforcement office in the land than Ted Olson"

I think its a safe bet that if Bush does indeed think this, its only because someone told him so.

Let's hear it for unintended consequences!!

Once again people trying to do good, do bad.

An attempt to protect children ends up alienating men and children and how healthy can that be for all involved?

Fade in: Concerned looking parent, holding cup of coffee

Yes, I suppose I could take my children's upbringing firmly in hand, and thus not be to concerned with Corporate America seeing them merely as dollar signs regardless of their well being... I guess I could be more secure in myself and not be afraid to tell my children right from wrong and in so doing be labeled 'un-cool'... No, I'm far too busy pursuing my personal goals, I think I'll let the free market raise my kids, after all it's done a bang up job with me so far

I'm convinced Bush's primary motivation is to not be seen as a failure. The reason he wants the Iraq war to continue past his presidency is because he correctly reasons that historically if the Iraq war begins and ends during his term then unquestionably its failure will be his.

That being the case I believe an attack on Iran will depend on how close the Iraq war is to drawing to a close during his presidency, whether due to a Democratic controlled congress forcing the issue or other unforeseen events.

I.E. if a continued Iraq war looks robust and healthy through the end of Bush's presidency, then no attack on Iran. If it looks like the president's is forced to reduce troops then I believe he will attack Iran, under the rubric of the "Global War On Terror" and happily leave the mess to his successor and let history argue his legacy.