Very good move Mr. President.

President George W Bush has called for an international meeting to discuss efforts to restart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.
The proposed meeting would take place later this year and involve the US, Israel and some of its Arab neighbours.

Speaking at the White House, Mr Bush also announced a $190m (£95m) aid package for President Mahmoud Abbas’s emergency Palestinian government.

Earlier, Israel said it would release 250 Palestinian prisoners.

The goodwill gesture by Israel is part of efforts to bolster Mr Abbas since the Islamic militant group Hamas defeated his forces and seized control of the Gaza Strip last month.

Mr Bush said the Middle East Quartet - which consists of the US, Russia, the EU and the UN - would help strengthen the government of Mr Abbas to promote peace.

“We can help them prove to the world, the region and Israel that a Palestinian state would be a partner, not a danger.

Story

What can I say? Is anyone watching the watchers?

An independent oversight board created to identify intelligence abuses after the CIA scandals of the 1970s did not send any reports to the attorney general of legal violations during the first 5 1/2 years of the Bush administration’s counterterrorism effort, the Justice Department has told Congress.

Although the FBI told the board of a few hundred legal or rules violations by its own agents after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the board did not identify which of them were indeed legal violations. This spring, it forwarded reports of violations in 2006, officials said.

The President’s Intelligence Oversight Board — the principal civilian watchdog of the intelligence community — is obligated under a 26-year-old executive order to tell the attorney general and the president about any intelligence activities it believes “may be unlawful.” The board was vacant for the first two years of the Bush administration.

The FBI sent copies of its violation reports directly to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. But the board’s mandate was to provide independent oversight, so the absence of such communications has led critics to question whether the board was doing its job.

“It’s now apparent that the IOB was not actively employed in the early part of the administration. And it was a crucial period when its counsel would seem to have been needed the most,” said Anthony Harrington, who served as the board’s chairman for most of the Clinton administration.

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., added: “It is deeply disturbing that this administration seems to spend so much of its energy and resources trying to find ways to ignore any check and balance on its authority and avoid accountability to Congress and the American public.”

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Friday that “the president expects every single person working in counterterrorism and intelligence strictly to follow the law — and if there are instances where that has not occurred, either intentionally or non-intentionally, he expects it promptly to be corrected.” She said the White House was relying on the presidentially appointed director of national intelligence to monitor problems.

Story

If I didn’t think I was wasting my vote, I would give it to him in a heartbeat.

Ron Paul, the Lake Jackson congressman running a long shot campaign, reported raising nearly $2.4 million from April through June and ended the quarter with a similar amount in the bank.

The total is a remarkable showing for Paul, putting him in a better financial position — with less cash on hand but no debt — than Arizona Sen. John McCain. Paul still barely registers in public opinion polls and raised far less than McCain or the other leading Republicans. But his libertarian views and opposition to the war in Iraq have ignited a fire among nontraditional contributors, particularly on the Internet.

Paul has relied on his debate appearances and on an online network to spread his message. He also spent $120,000 on printing and mailing fundraising letters, his single biggest expense. Overall, he has raised $3 million for the year and spent $646,000.

Story

This is an opinion piece by Mona Charen.
It pretty much speaks for itself.

Is the Republican Party standing on the edge of a cliff? It’s possible. Let’s consider the bad news.

(1) Fund-raising. Republicans are still portrayed as the little Monopoly man capitalists by the media, but the truth is that Democrats are now (alas) the party of the rich. As Peter Schweizer reported in National Review Online last year, “In 2004, Democrats made up 15 of the 25 individuals who gave more than $2 million to 527 groups. Of the Senate and House candidates who received ‘bundled’ contributions that year, 9 out of the top 10 in the Senate and 8 out of 10 in the House were Democrats. … In 2002, those who gave a million dollars or more gave $36 million to the Democrats and only $3 million to Republicans, a 12:1 ratio.”

Fund-raising for 2008 has so far vastly favored the Democrats. Over the last three months, the top three Democratic candidates have raised $68.5 million compared with $48.7 million for the top three Republicans.

There may be many reasons for this Democratic advantage, including a certain reticence among those who wish to support former Sen. Fred Thompson (and we don’t yet know how much he has raised). But Democratic House and Senate candidates too are outstripping their rivals.

Opinion piece

This is an editorial by William Kristol.
Down deep inside I hope he is correct.

I suppose I’ll merely expose myself to harmless ridicule if I make the following assertion: George W. Bush’s presidency will probably be a successful one.

Let’s step back from the unnecessary mistakes and the self-inflicted wounds that have characterized the Bush administration. Let’s look at the broad forest rather than the often unlovely trees. What do we see? First, no second terrorist attack on U.S. soil — not something we could have taken for granted. Second, a strong economy — also something that wasn’t inevitable.

And third, and most important, a war in Iraq that has been very difficult, but where — despite some confusion engendered by an almost meaningless “benchmark” report last week — we now seem to be on course to a successful outcome.

The economy first: After the bursting of the dot-com bubble, followed by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, we’ve had more than five years of steady growth, low unemployment and a stock market recovery. Did this just happen? No. Bush pushed through the tax cuts of 2001 and especially 2003 by arguing that they would produce growth. His opponents predicted dire consequences. But the president was overwhelmingly right. Even the budget deficit, the most universally criticized consequence of the tax cuts, is coming down and is lower than it was when the 2003 supply-side tax cuts were passed.

Bush has also (on the whole) resisted domestic protectionist pressures (remember the Democratic presidential candidates in 2004 complaining about outsourcing?), thereby helping sustain global economic growth.

The year 2003 also featured a close congressional vote on Bush’s other major first-term initiative, the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Liberals denounced it as doing nothing for the elderly; conservatives worried that it would bust the budget. Experts of all stripes foresaw great challenges in its implementation. In fact, it has all gone surprisingly smoothly, providing broad and welcome coverage for seniors and coming in under projected costs.

So on the two biggest pieces of domestic legislation the president has gotten passed, he has been vindicated. And with respect to the two second-term proposals that failed — private Social Security accounts and immigration — I suspect that something similar to what Bush proposed will end up as law over the next several years.

editorial

If this story is true, it scares the hell out of me.

FBI personnel who used misleading emergency letters to acquire thousands of Americans’ phone records are the subject of a criminal investigation, top bureau officials told civil liberties groups Monday.

The unprecedented criminal probe, revealed at an outreach meeting led by FBI director Robert Mueller and general counsel Valerie Caproni at FBI headquarters, is looking at the actions of an antiterrorism team known as the Communications Analysis Unit, according to two people who attended the meeting independently and who informed Wired News, requesting anonymity.

The privately disclosed investigation would mark the first time government officials have faced possible prosecution for misuse of Patriot Act investigative tools, and highlights the seriousness of recent reports about the FBI’s misuse of a powerful self-issued subpoena known as a National Security Letter.

Unit employees, who are not authorized to request records in investigations, sent form letters to telephone companies to acquire detailed billing information on specific phone numbers by falsely promising that subpoenas were already in the works.

According to a third source, FBI officials also said at the meeting that some bureau employees have already been granted immunity from prosecution in the investigation. The third source, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, did not recall, however, that FBI officials described the investigation as “criminal.”

FBI spokesman Richard Kolko confirmed that the meeting took place but declined to comment on the content of the conversation, saying only, “The FBI does not confirm or deny investigations.”

Neither the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General nor the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility returned calls for comment.

While the scope of the alleged investigation is unknown, investigators could be examining whether the unit violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, or committed fraud by falsely swearing that subpoenas were being prepared.

National Security Letters are self-issued subpoenas that allow investigators in terrorism and espionage cases to require phone companies, banks, credit reporting agencies and internet service providers to turn over records on Americans considered “relevant” to an investigation. Those records are then fed into three computer systems, including a shared data-mining tool known as the Investigative Data Warehouse.

Though warned in 2001 to use this power sparingly, FBI agents issued more than 47,000 National Security Letters in 2005, more than half of which targeted Americans

Story

Category FBI, Patriot act

Isn’t it wonderful to have friends?

Sunni extremists from Saudi Arabia make up half the foreign fighters in Iraq, many suicide bombers, a U.S. official says.( I wounder who he or she is) Although Bush administration officials have frequently lashed out at Syria and Iran, accusing it of helping insurgents and militias here, the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, Saudi Arabia, according to a senior U.S. military officer and Iraqi lawmakers.

About 45% of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia; 15% are from Syria and Lebanon; and 10% are from North Africa, according to official U.S. military figures made available to The Times by the senior officer. Nearly half of the 135 foreigners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis, he said.

Fighters from Saudi Arabia are thought to have carried out more suicide bombings than those of any other nationality, said the senior U.S. officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject’s sensitivity. It is apparently the first time a U.S. official has given such a breakdown on the role played by Saudi nationals in Iraq’s Sunni Arab insurgency.

He said 50% of all Saudi fighters in Iraq come here as suicide bombers. In the last six months, such bombings have killed or injured 4,000 Iraqis.

The situation has left the U.S. military in the awkward position of battling an enemy whose top source of foreign fighters is a key ally that at best has not been able to prevent its citizens from undertaking bloody attacks in Iraq, and at worst shares complicity in sending extremists to commit attacks against U.S. forces, Iraqi civilians and the Shiite-led government in Baghdad.

Story

What will the press think of next?

Fred Thompson, would-be presidential candidate, is 64 years old and looks it. His wife, Jeri, is two years younger than one of his daughters and looks even younger than her 40 years.

They have had two babies together since they married in 2002.

Does it matter?

Imagine if Hillary Clinton were married to a 36-year-old stud. She’d be laughed out of town. Imagine, at 60, if she decided she wanted two more children. Too old, we’d all be screaming.

So, does anyone care when Fred Thompson does it?

There have been pictures of the buxom and beautiful Jeri Thompson circulating on the Web for months. Last weekend, the story broke into the mainstream media when The New York Times asked whether the country was ready for a president with a “trophy wife.”

This term is generally used to refer to women who are substantially younger, less wrinkled, and sometimes, but not always, more accomplished than the old model. The old model was there when the guy was nobody, offering him support, cleaning the house, and giving birth to the children who are now older than the new edition.

Thompson supporters, and even some who aren’t, went slightly nuts at the audacity of The New York Times for even asking the question.

Imagine, the mainstream media descending to discuss what bloggers have been talking about for months. Are there no standards?

Putting aside that little piece of hypocrisy, as well as the one about how all of us would react if the genders were switched, the question remains whether voters will actually care.

Will men be jealous, or impressed?

Will women say “ick” and be turned off?

Story

I don’t know what’s happening here, you tell me.
Go get them Mr.Paul.

The rich got richer when it came to presidential fund-raising last quarter as the Democrats saw their big financial edge over the Republicans extend even to lesser-known candidates. And in both parties the financial gap between the leaders and the rest of the pack widened.

All told, the eight Democrats running for president raised more than $80 million from April 1 to June 30, while the 10 Republicans raised less than $50 million, according to the campaigns, which released details on Sunday night of their fund-raising and spending.

The Democrats were led during those months by Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, who raised $32.8 million, and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who raised $27 million. John Edwards raised $8.9 million; Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico raised $7 million, Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut raised $3.25 million; and Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware raised $2.3 million.

The top Republican candidates raised less than their Democratic counterparts — Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, took in $17.27 million, Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, took in $13.73 million and Senator John McCain of Arizona raised $11.2 million — but so did the other Republicans.

After them, the only other Republican who managed to raise more than $2 million in the quarter was Representative Ron Paul of Texas, whose antiwar candidacy and whose following on the Internet helped him take in $2.35 million. Nearly half of Mr. Paul’s money came in donations of less than $200.

Mr. Paul outraised several other well-known Republican candidates. Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas raised $1.4 million; Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, raised $763,000, and Tommy G. Thompson, the former Wisconsin governor and member of the Bush administration, raised $445,000.

Story

I guess that this is the end of the Mcain for President.

Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign spent more than it raised from April through June, leaving him financially strapped with $3.2 million cash on hand and a $1.8 million debt, according to a report filed Sunday with the Federal Election Commission.

Hindered by unpopular stands on the war and on immigration, McCain raised $11.26 million in the second quarter, short of his first quarter donations. He spent $13 million. Overall, McCain has raised $25 million so far in his campaign and spent $22 million.

McCain, the senator from Arizona, upended his campaign organization last week as his financial straits became apparent. His campaign manager, Terry Nelson, left and his longtime strategist, John Weaver, resigned. The repercussions caused changes down the chain of command.

Story

One hell of a mess isn’t it?

The Roman Catholic Church in Los Angeles has apologised to hundreds of people abused by priests after agreeing to a record-breaking settlement.
The apology by Cardinal Roger Mahony, the Church’s leader, comes after the 508 victims reached a pay-out deal with the church worth $660m (£324m).

Attorneys for both sides will appear in court on Monday to finalise the deal.

The deal was reached just before a series of trials into sex claims dating back to the 1940s were to begin.

“I have come to understand far more deeply that I ever could the impact of this terrible sin and crime that has affected their lives,” Cardinal Mahony told a news conference, confirming the compensation deal.

“There really is no way to go back and give them that innocence that was taken from them. The one thing I wish I could give the victims… I cannot.

“Once again, I apologise to anyone who has been offended, who has been abused. It should not have happened, and it will not happen again,” Cardinal Mahony said.

Story

This speaks for itself.

The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.
The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: “Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo.”
The White House claims that Iran, whose influence in the Middle East has increased significantly over the last six years, is intent on building a nuclear weapon and is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.

Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. “The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern,” the source said this week.

Nick Burns, the undersecretary of state responsible for Iran and a career diplomat who is one of the main advocates of negotiation, told the meeting it was likely that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009. That assessment went down badly with Mr Cheney and Mr Bush.

“Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact,” said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Story

To have a dream for so long and to have it disappear so quickly.

The year was 1973, and Karl Rove was looking for help — from the Nixon White House.

Tucked away inside 78,000 pages of documents from the Nixon administration, released by the National Archives earlier this week, is a little gem: a strategy memorandum from the man who would go on to become the architect of President Bush’s rise to political power.

Mr. Rove, then a 22-year-old aide on Capitol Hill, was planning a run to become chairman of the College Republicans, a position he would ultimately win twice. So he wrote to Anne Armstrong, then counselor to Nixon. Mrs. Armstrong had been co-chairman of the Republican National Committee, and therefore Mr. Rove’s ultimate boss the previous year when he was executive director of the college group.

In the memorandum, he thanked her for “taking time out of your busy schedule” to talk with him, and offered up his musings — in the form of a nine-page typed outline — on how to strengthen the Republican Party by motivating students.

“Appreciate anything you might be able to do for me,” he wrote, on simple stationery with only his name, Karl C. Rove, at the top. “I have taken the liberty of enclosing the rough outline of my platform. Of special interest is the ‘New Federalism Advocates’ mentioned in the campaign section.”

The document, intended to develop an election program for the 1974 midterm campaigns, suggests that even then, Mr. Rove had a keen eye for organization, and a propensity for slicing and dicing the electorate, the kind of microtargeting that has since become a hallmark of his campaigns.

In his memorandum, Mr. Rove offered suggestions, from having college Republican clubs show “nonpolitical films for fund-raising (e.g. John Wayne flicks, ‘Reefer Madness’)” to developing a “Student Guide to Lobbying” with a “forward by Bush/Nixon.” That, of course, would be the elder George Bush, then chairman of the Republican National Committee, through whom Mr. Rove first met the current occupant of the White House.

Mr. Rove’s memorandum also proposes building a group of “New Federalism Advocates,” modeled on “Friends of Nixon,” a Nixon campaign committee. The group would have representatives from each state who, Mr. Rove suggested, could meet in Washington for “extensive briefings” with top administration officials like John D. Ehrlichman and H. R. Haldeman.

Story