President Bush announced today that the United States will drop North Korea from its list of state sponsors of terrorism in exchange for the communist regime's cooperation in the Six Party Talks. After months of stalling and diplomatic wrangling, North Korea turned over a declaration of all its past nuclear activities today to China, the host of the Six Party Talks, which will share the information with the U.S, Russia, Japan, and South Korea. The de-listing of the North as a terror sponsor clears the way for food and fuel aid, desperately needed by its impoverished people, to be delivered. Until today, North Korea had been resisting releasing the new declaration, saying that it had already made a complete declaration of its nuclear activities at the end of last year. The Bush Administration disputed that and insisted that the North provide more details about its clandestine nuclear programs. It appears that Kim Jong-Il, the North's reclusive and eccentric leader, gave in to that demand today.

At the White House today, President Bush said that the new developments were the "beginning of a process of action for action."

"If North Korea continues to make the right choices, it can repair its relationship with the international community. If North Korea makes the wrong choices, the United States and its partners in the six-party talks will act accordingly.

If they don't fulfill their promises, more restrictions will be placed on them."

Critics of the announcement said that the North had routinely violated international agreements, including with the United States, and could not be trusted. Former Assistant Secretary of State and United Nations Ambassador John Bolton declared it, "shameful," saying the deal represented, "the final collapse of Bush's foreign policy."

Bolton is right to be suspicious, and it may well be that the agreement will not be able to be fully judged for several years and without full verification in the form of inspections. But the Bush Administration is content to call this a major diplomatic victory and is optimistically looking forward to putting the United States on firm footing with respect to the threat from North Korea before the president's term expires.

the Next Right is on top of the last few days hoorah around Republican and conservative circles. The intense focus on oil, offshore drilling, etc. has moved beyond the usual circles into Evangelical territory:

he American Family Association sent out an alert to its massive list and got 400,000 letters sent to Congress for more oil drilling. Why is this important? In presentations, I often cite the AFA's monster list as the biggest on the Right. And in my years on their list, I've never seen them focus on anything other than social issues. Their focus on oil is a big, big deal.

It's pretty much the only topic that anyone on the right is talking about, for three straight days. Talk about on message. Today, The Next Right speculates as to whether, in the face of the $4 a gallon gas and crashing support for bans on drilling, the Democratic party will abandon environmental concerns in the same way they have essentially abandoned gun control. This is a good comparison, but it's early yet to see if it will work out the same:

The conventional punditry on McCain's call to end the ban on offshore oil exploration has focused on whether President Bush's suppport for the idea will hurt McCain in the fall. But that could change, and soon, if what's happened in just the past few days develops into a real trend:

• Sen. Jim Webb announced he now supports exploration off the coast of Virginia.
• Ex-Gov. Mark Warner also supports opening up the Virginia coastline to possible drilling.
• Meanwhile, the latest Gallup survey shows Democrats are split on offshore drilling, with 39% in support while 59% still oppose.

Better yet, it's an issue where independents side with the GOP, although the margins are not so wide (80% in favor vs. 56%). Overall, Americans favor opening up U.S. coastal waters by a 57% to 41%.

Now, what does this issue remind you of? How about gun control in the late 1990s?

And then goes on to highlight this Chris Bowers quote from MyDD, a traditional liberal blog.

The politics have changed, and I don't see the principle that guides Democrats to be unequivocally against offshore drilling for oil at this point. We are stuck on oil for a long time. Congressional Dems should adopt the position, include some safeguards, and alongside billions in funding for finding alternative fuel solutions, make it part of a long-term solution.

He sees that the Democrats cannot sustain opposition to drilling in the face of overwhelming popular support without terrible consequences at the polls. It really is just common sense and the need to win and pick your battles.

I just listened to President Bush renew his call to allow drilling in the country's Outer Continental Shelf and to let states help to decide where to allow drilling. Oh, and he also wants to go ahead and open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, too. And then I got angry.

The Shelf is defined as "all submerged lands lying seaward of state coastal waters (3 miles offshore) which are under U.S. jurisdiction." That includes the frigid Alaskan waters, the coral reefs of the Florida Keys, Maine's rocky coasts and other shorelines in between where, the Sierra Club points out, thousands of plant and animal species thrive. Bush's reasoning is that $4+ per gallon gas at the pump is just cause to mutilate our shorelines and decimate the surrounding environments and ecosystems with our drills. It reportedly could take up to 10 years to even get that oil out.

This same week, Congress once again failed again to pass a bill extending tax credits that would continue to fuel the growth of the solar and wind industries. The incentives are due to expire at the end of the year. Because the industries are capital intensive to get off the ground, tax credits are required to help get them up and running - and to encourage residents to lean green. Apparently our lawmakers are fighting over who is going to pay for those incentives.

The San Francisco Chronicle notes that there are currently 22 major solar power plants in the planning phase in the U.S., many of them in Southern California. But all those deals were signed based on the assumption Congress would extend the solar energy tax incentives.

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said yesterday that President Bush supports lifting the ban on oil and gas exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf and will formally ask Congress to lift the federal moratoria preventing drilling off the nation's coasts.

"The president believes Congress shouldn't waste any more time. He will explicitly call on Congress to ... pass legislation lifting the congressional ban on safe, environmentally friendly offshore oil drilling."

The move by the White House is something of a coordinated effort with Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, who yesterday called for lifting the drilling ban.

Congress has prevented the Interior Department from initiating offshore drilling leases since 1981 by refusing to approve funds for that purpose. There is also an Executive Order, signed by the first President Bush, preventing drilling. The Executive Order has been extended by President Clinton and President George W. Bush until 2012. The president has not yet announced whether he would rescind the order as part of his effort to get Congress to act on the drilling ban; but should he do so, it would be a strong indication that his Administration intends to pressure Congress over gas prices throughout the summer driving season and the fall election season. For its part, Congress has other plans. A group of lawmakers is considering an extension to the drilling ban, with the House Appropriations Committee set to consider the measure today.

CNN's Rebecca Sinderbrand points out that for only the second time in nearly three decades, there won't be a Bush on the presidential ballot this November. On Sunday, in an interview with SkyNews President Bush was asked about the future of the Bush family in American Presidential politics. Bush alluded to his brother, saying, "Well, we've got another one out there who did a fabulous job as governor of Florida, and that's Jeb. But you know, you better ask him whether or not he's thinking of running. But he'd ." Watch the President's interview with Sky news here.

The idea of another Bush presidency prompted a round of derision from left-wing bloggers. Shakesville's Melissa McEwan wrote, "I'd literally vote for a bag of vomit before I'd vote for Jeb Bush. Or any Bush. And, no, I don't care that Jebby would probably be a better president than Dubya." Wonkette's Jim Newell wrote, "[s]ince everyone in this country forgets everything, he can easily run in 2012." Steve Benen at The Carpetbagger Report asked, "Can't that family just stop tormenting our nation?"

Yesterday Frank Dwyer jokingly (I think) predicted that Jeb Bush would replace McCain later this year. "Jeb and the country have a lot in common," Dwyer writes, "Jeb himself may be George's biggest victim! Imagine if you were George's brother. He got such a bad deal. Voters will vote for poor Jeb because they feel sorry for him."

Speaking at a press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the close of his stop in Germany, President Bush said that he had no regrets about his decision to invade Iraq in 2003 and topple Saddam Hussein. Bush did say that the tone of some of the rhetoric he has employed in furtherance of U.S. policy goals in the broader war on terror could have contributed to international divisions over the war, telling the UK Times newspaper that phrases such as, "dead or alive," and, "bring it on," could have been expressed less stridently. But the president remained firm on the initial decision to go into Iraq and said that the recent progress there, brought about by the troop surge, would, "change the Middle East for the better." "Removing Saddam Hussein made the world a safer place," he said.

Bush addressed the casualties in Iraq, sure to be seized upon by his critics as one area where the president should have expressed some regret, by saying that he found it particularly difficult, "to put youngsters in harm's way," and said that he had a duty to make sure that the lives lost were not in vain. One way the Administration is trying to do that is by negotiating an agreement with the government of Iraq that would spell out the role of U.S. forces in the country into the future. The U.S. and Iraq plan to have a final Status of Forces Agreement in place by the fall, and the president was optimistic about its eventual completion while seeking to dispel some concerns about its likely provisions. "I think we'll get the agreement done," he said. "This will not involve permanent bases nor will it bind any future president to troop levels."

President Bush has been asked on several occasions if he continues to believe that the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do at the time. Each time, he has answered that he does. The president is not given to much introspection or second-guessing of himself, so it remains a wonder why the media continues to ask these questions. Bush will make comparatively small admissions around the edges of his policy, such as that over his heated war rhetoric, but he will likely not admit that the war was a mistake, as the press would certainly like him to. Ultimately, the final answer on that question doesn't belong to President Bush. It will be up to the Iraqi government, and successive U.S. Administrations, to see that the U.S. effort to build a democracy in the heart of the Middle East is a successful one.

On his last scheduled swing through Europe, President Bush has Iran and its nuclear weapons program high on his agenda. Following the president's first stop on his trip, the U.S.-European Union Summit in Slovenia, the two sides issued a joint declaration that the allies are, "ready to supplement sanctions with additional measures," if the Islamic Republic does not halt its uranium enrichment programs. Yesterday, in Germany, the president sought to shore up support for a new round of sanctions on Iran. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has reduced her country's trade with Iran, but is viewed as being lukewarm to additional sanctions.

The president is rushing to find a resolution to the Iranian nuclear standoff before his term expires in January. But the pace of negotiations with Iran and European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana has been painstakingly slow. Solana is preparing to offer another incentives package to Iran in exchange for its abandonment of its nuclear activities. Incentives packages have not thus far convinced Iran to change its ways, and the Bush Administration is looking to get the Europeans to agree to "turn up the pressure," in the words of National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, in the likely event that the Iranians reject the offer.

Iran, North Korea, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remain sticky foreign policy problems for the Bush Administration as it heads into its final six months in office. Those countries and disputes represent international problem spots that have vexed many previous U.S. Administrations. However, the president and his national security team would very much like to leave the nation with some sense of direction on all three. But it is reliant on partners in Europe and elsewhere that have a much different view of the situations in each, and much longer time frames for getting a resolution. The Bush Administration may have to be satisfied to have given its best effort and hope that the next Administration chooses to pick up the ball and advance it further.

It's a game that's all the rage in this year's campaign: Linking your rival in the race for president to a past commander-in-chief. From the get go, the Democrats and Barack Obama have made the case that electing John McCain is tantamount to ushering in a third term of George W. Bush. After all, the two share a similar view on the Iraq war, corporate and personal income taxes, education, and right-wing court appointments. Obama and the DNC's have shown lock-step message discipline in shrinking McCain into Bush's "Mini-Me." And a veritable YouTube cottage industry has arisen to guarantee that the two men are forever joined at the hip in the minds of the electorate. Here's just one example:



Recently, John McCain has started pushing a comeback cooked up by the RNC. If McCain is left-over Bush, then Obama is thawed and microwaved Jimmy Carter. That's a pretty good retort, in that it attempts to link Obama to the days of out-of-control spending, inflation, and a daunting energy crisis. Unfortunately, McCain isn't really eloquent enough to flesh out the argument to a younger generation of voters who don't know why they're supposed to revile Carter. Here's McCain in one of the two interviews he gave yesterday in which he made the Carter claim: