The term "national security" has become talismanic, conferring extraordinary powers on the President whenever it is uttered. It insulates the executive branch from congressional oversight and reduces the Constitution to advisory status. The circularity of the term's operation is frequently overlooked. Information and programs are classified according to presidential orders and when Congress or the judiciary seeks such information they are told that because the information is classified, national security forbids disclosure. Even the Code of Federal Regulations identifies national security information as information that is classified pursuant to executive orders. In other words, the material is classified and unavailable because the President says so; no reasons need to be supplied. This prevents Congress from having access to the material, for even the two select committees for oversight of intelligence activities are shunned when they request documents.

In this link you see various letters from members of Congress and the executive branch, with bureaucrats refusing information to the two intelligence oversight committees because the committee members do not have appropriate clearances. Of course, clearances, like classified information, are exclusively controlled by the President. So if he does not want oversight of anything he has made secret he simply refuses Congress clearance to see the material. This is the modern version of Royal Prerogative that was argued by Parliament against Charles I in 17th century England and was finally, so we thought, put to rest in the United States by the Constitution. "National security" has converted the presidency into a limited monarchy with the power to deny the people, through their elected representatives, accountability for executive actions.

These letters show that oversight of Special Access Programs (SAPs) at the Department of Defense is nonexistent because no one in congress has a high enough security clearance. It highlights the nightmare that Russ Tice, former National Security Agency (NSA) intelligence analyst and a member of NSWBC, went through to find someone in congress to whom he could address illegal and unconstitutional activity involving the super secret realm of "black world" programs and operations. Mr. Tice attempted to bring these concerns to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Those attempts were rebuffed by the NSA and the chairmen of the intelligence committees themselves. To date, Russell Tice has not been allowed to address a full committee in closed session, or even a single member of congress, about the abuses in these SAP programs.

From James Bamford's review, Intelligence Test, in the NYT:

"the commission was charged with explaining not only what happened, but also why it happened. In looking into the background of the hijackers, the staff found that religious orthodoxy was not a common denominator since some of the members "reportedly even consumed alcohol and abused drugs." Others engaged in casual sex. Instead, hatred of American foreign policy in the Middle East seemed to be the key factor. Speaking to the F.B.I. agents who investigated the attacks, Hamilton asked: "You've looked [at] and examined the lives of these people as closely as anybody. . . . What have you found out about why these men did what they did? What motivated them to do it?"

These questions fell to Supervisory Special Agent James Fitzgerald. "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States," he said. "They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States." As if to reinforce the point, the commission discovered that the original plan for 9/11 envisioned an even larger attack. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the strategist of the 9/11 plot, "was going to fly the final plane, land it and make 'a speech denouncing U.S. policies in the Middle East,'" Kean and Hamilton say, quoting a staff statement. And they continue: "Lee felt that there had to be an acknowledgment that a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was vital to America's long-term relationship with the Islamic world, and that the presence of American forces in the Middle East was a major motivating factor in Al Qaeda's actions."

Given the Bush administration's current policies in the region, another 9/11-style attack is less a matter of if than when."

This review in the NYT overlooks the fact that there was no recommendations in the 9/11 commission's report addressing US support for Israel. Bamford's review in the NYT does not reveal the fact that there was "some disagreement over foreign policy issues. Much of it revolved around the question of al Qaeda's motivation." and that "this was sensitive ground." The review doesn't reveal the ugly fact that some commissioners were able to pressure the group into not putting any recommendations in the report addressing US support for Israel. It is a scandal that commissioners bowed to pressure to suppress what was the main motive for the 9/11 attacks. Their compromise was to write in their report that "America's policy choices have consequences. Right or wrong," They were too worried about playing politics to admit that biased US government policy in the Middle East in favor of Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict motivates the terrorists. They coped out and wrote that "American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American actions in Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary." These "American actions" or more accurately, the actions dictated by the policies of special interests, are resulting in much more than "commentary!"

Ivan Eland's review, "9/11 Commission Chairmen Admit Whitewashing the Cause of the Attacks" is the review that clued me in on the fact that the "book by the chairmen of the 9/11 commission admits that the commission whitewashed the root cause of the 9/11 attacks." Eland makes these critical points in his review:

"The book usefully details the administration's willful misrepresentation of its incompetent actions that day, but makes the shocking admission that some commission members deliberately wanted to distort an even more important issue. Apparently, unidentified commissioners wanted to cover up the fact that U.S. support for Israel was one of the motivating factors behind al Qaeda's 9/11 attack. Although Hamilton, to his credit, argued for saying that the reasons al Qaeda committed the heinous strike were the U.S. military presence in the Middle East and American support for Israel, the panel watered down that frank conclusion to state that U.S. policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and U.S. policy on Iraq are "dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world."

Some commissioners wanted to cover up the link between the 9/11 attack and U.S. support for Israel because this might imply that the United States should alter policy and lessen its support for Israeli actions. How right they were. The question is simple: if the vast bulk of Americans would be safer if U.S. politicians moderated their slavish support of Israel, designed to win the support of key pressure groups at home, wouldn't it be a good idea to make this change in course? Average U.S. citizens might attenuate their support for Israel if the link between the 9/11 attacks and unquestioning U.S. favoritism for Israeli excesses were more widely known."

The book, "Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission" does reveal what those studying this issue have suspected, that some commissioners on the 9/11 Commission argued against and stopped the Commission from making a recommendation about the main motive for the 9/11 attacks: US support of Israel.

From Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission pp. 284-285:

"We did however, have some disagreement over foreign policy issues. Much of it revolved around the question of al Qaeda's motivation. For instance, Lee felt that there had to be an acknowledgment that a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was vital to America's long-term relationship with the Islamic world, and that the presence of American forces in the Middle East was a major motivating factor in al Qaeda's actions. Similarly, several commissioners pointed out that we had to acknowledge that the American presence in Iraq had become the dominant issue in the way the world's Muslims viewed the United States.

--- This was sensitive ground. Commissioners who argued that al Qaeda was motivated primarily by a religious ideology - and not by opposition to American policies - rejected mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the report. In their view, listing U.S. support for Israel as a root cause of al Qaeda's opposition to the United States indicated that the United States should reassess that policy. To Lee, though, it was not a question of altering support for Israel but merely stating a fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was central to the relations between the Islamic world and the United States - and to Bin Laden's ideology and the support he gained throughout the Islamic world for his jihad against America. ... We ended up agreeing on language that acknowledged the importance of the two issues without passing judgment:

America's policy choices have consequences. Right or wrong, it is simply a fact that American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American actions in Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world. That does not mean U.S. choices have been wrong. It means those choices must be integrated with America's message of opportunity to the Arab and Muslim world. Neither Israel nor the new Iraq will be safer if worldwide Islamist terrorism grows stronger.

This book lets this flawed argument stand as the excuse for why they ended up agreeing on what they put in the 9/11 Commission's Report. Commissioners who argued that al Qaeda was motivated primarily by a religious ideology and against mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the report ignored the findings of the Commission's own staff!:

* "The staff found that religious orthodoxy was not a common denominator since some of the members "reportedly even consumed alcohol and abused drugs." Others engaged in casual sex."

* By 1992, Bin Ladin was focused on attacking the United States. He argued that other extremists, aimed at local rulers or Israel, had not gone far enough; they had not attacked what he called 'the head of the snake,' the United States. He charged that the United States, in addition to backing Israel, kept in power repressive Arab regimes not true to Islam. He also excoriated the continued presence of U.S. military forces in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War as a defilement of holy Muslim land.

These Commissioners ignored testimony from the Commission's own hearings!:

MR. SNELL: Atta was chosen as the emir, or leader of the mission. He met with Bin Ladin to discuss the targets, the World Trade Center, which represented the United States economy, the Pentagon, a symbol of the U.S. military, and the U.S. Capitol, the perceived source of U.S. policy in support of Israel.
...
MR. HAMILTON: But what have you found out about why these men did what they did? What motivated them to do it?

MR. FITZGERALD: I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States

These Commissioners ignored what made it into the 9/11 Comission's own report!

The report showed that the two terrorist pilots shared the same motivation. Both Mohammed Atta, the leader of the mission and terrorist pilot who crashed into World Trade Center 1, and Marwan al Shehhi, the terrorist pilot who crashed into WTC 2, were angry about what Israel was doing to the Palestinians:

* "when someone asked why he and Atta never laughed, Shehhi retorted, 'How can you laugh when people are dying in Palestine?'" p 162

The report showed that the architect of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, shared the same motivation.

* "By his own account, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." Chapter 5

My own research has turned up even more evidence which the Commission had access to as well:

* Abdulaziz Alomari, one of the hijackers aboard Flight 11 with Mohammed Atta, said in his video will, "My work is a message those who heard me and to all those who saw me at the same time it is a message to the infidels that you should leave the Arabian peninsula defeated and stop giving a hand of help to the coward Jews in Palestine."

* Ahmed Al Haznawi, a hijacker aboard Flight 93, said in his video will, "Here is Palestine for more than a half-century, its wound has continued to bleed."

In March of 2002, MSNBC aired "The Making of the Death Pilots." In that documentary, German friend Ralph Bodenstein who traveled, worked and talked a lot with Mohammed Atta. Ralph said, "He (Atta) was most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about US protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that."

"We swore that America wouldn't live in security until we live it truly in Palestine. This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America won't get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula, and until it stops its support of Israel." -Osama bin Laden, October 2001

"... the Mujahideen saw the black gang of thugs in the White House hiding the Truth, and their stupid and foolish leader, who is elected and supported by his people, denying reality and proclaiming that we (the Mujahideen) were striking them because we were jealous of them (the Americans), whereas the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries." -Osama Bin Laden , February 14 , 2003

These facts point to a motive for attacking the WTC in 2001 that is consistent with the motive expressed by terrorists in a letter sent to the New York Times after the 1993 bombing attack of the WTC, "We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region."

It is also the same motive that Mir Aimal Kasi had for killing CIA employees Frank Darling and Lansing Bennett outside CIA headquarters in Langley,Virginia in 1993 . Mir Aimal Kasi said, "What I did was a retaliation against the US government for American policy in the Middle East and its support of Israel ." Mir Aimal Kasi once professed a love for this country, his uncle testified. "He always say that 'I like America, I love America and I want to go there,'" Amanullah Kasi said at a sentencing hearing for his nephew, Mir Aimal Kasi . Kasi's roommate, who had reported him missing after the shootings, told police that Kasi would get incensed watching CNN when he heard how Muslims were being treated. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Kasi said he did not approve of the attack on the World Trade Center because innocent were killed. He understood, however, the attack on the Pentagon, the symbol of government might. - Motives for 9/11 Terrorist Attacks

On the question of which political party can do a better job of protecting the US, both parties lost support since an April poll. But in another sign of trouble for the Bush administration, the AP/Ipsos poll also shows that more Americans believe the Democrats will do a better job than Republicans, 47-40 percent.

A new CNN poll shows that only about one-third of Americans now support the war in Iraq, with 61 percent opposed. Fifty-one percent of Americans see President Bush as a strong leader, although he doesn't do well in other areas of the survey.

Most Americans (54 percent) don't consider him honest, most (54 percent) don't think he shares their values and most (58 percent) say he does not inspire confidence. Bush's stand on the issues is also problematic, with more than half (57 percent) of Americans saying they disagree with him on the issues they care about. That's an indication that issues, not personal characteristics, are keeping his approval rating well below 50 percent ...

Bush dismissed a question about his popularity during a news conference Monday.

"I don't think you've ever heard me say: 'Gosh, I better change positions because the polls say this or that,'" he told reporters. "I've been here long enough to understand, you cannot make good decisions if you're trying to chase a poll." He added, "I'm going to do what I think is right, and if, you know, if people don't like me for it, that's just the way it is."

A Princeton Survey Research Associates International poll conducted Aug. 24-25 for Newsweek shows that 63 percent of Americans disapprove of the way the president has handled Iraq. A CBSNews/New York Times poll conducted Aug. 17-21 shows 65 percent of Americans disapprove of the way the president is dealing with Iraq. Among those who identified themselves as independents, 67 percent disapprove.

Finally, a survey by Quinnipiac University Polling Institute found that 60 percent of Americans believe screening of people who look "Middle Eastern" at airports and train stations is OK.

Quinnipiac's director of polling, Maurice Carroll, said he was surprised by the apparent public support for racial profiling. "What's the motivation there -- is it bigotry, or is it fear or is it practicality?" he said.

The Quinnipiac poll also found that Americans considered the 9/11 attacks of more significance than the attack on Pearl Harbor. But the findings varied considerably among age groups, with 9/11 being the most important event among those 35 and under, but with Pearl Harbor being more important those 65 and older.

"People have fresh memories of 9-11 and many don't have any memories at all of Pearl Harbor, and those who do don't have fresh memories of it," said Bruce Schulman, a Boston University professor of history and American studies. "We also feel pretty confident that we know how the results of Pearl Harbor turned out, and we certainly don't know what the consequences of 9-11 are going to turn out to be.

The magazine's third annual list sees talkshow host
Oprah Winfrey dropping to 14th place and New York Senator
Hillary Clinton rising from 26 to 18 as her expected campaign for the US presidency in 2008 gathers pace.

The Italian-born head of India's Congress party, Sonia Gandhi, came in at number 13, while Melinda Gates, co-founder of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, jumped to 16 in a year in which the organisation doubled in size.

Merkel aside, the list includes three other women who emerged within the past year to become the first females to hold such high political office in their countries: Chilean President Michelle Bachelet (17), Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf (51) and South Korean Prime Minister Han Myung-sook (68).

Among women working in the entertainment industry, Disney co-chairman Anne Sweeney came in at 15 ahead of MTV's chief executive Judy McGrath (52), Amy Pascal, the chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment (60), and CBS Paramount TV's president Nancy Tellem (75).

Katie Couric, a CBS television network anchor, is the highest placed journalist at 54, ahead of globe-trotting CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour (79).

Among other notables are US First Lady Laura Bush (43),
Queen Elizabeth II (46), Myanmar's opposition leader democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi (47), Playboy chairman Christie Hefner (80) and Jordan's Queen Rania (81).

The report described a rising tide of sectarian violence, fed in part by interference from neighboring Iran and Syria and driven by a "vocal minority" of religious extremists who oppose the idea of a democratic Iraq.

Death squads targeting mainly Iraqi civilians are a growing problem, heightening the risk of civil war, the report said.

"Death squads and terrorists are locked in mutually reinforcing cycles of sectarian strife," the report said, adding that the Sunni-led insurgency "remains potent and viable" even as it is overshadowed by the sect-on-sect killing.

"Conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq, specifically in and around Baghdad, and concern about civil war within the Iraqi civilian population has increased in recent months," the report said. It is the latest in a series of quarterly reports required by Congress to assess economic, political and security progress.

Iraqi forces were dealing with more violence Friday as officials said a mortar attack on an open-air market in Mahmoudiya, about 20 miles south of Baghdad, killed three people and wounded 12. Elsewhere, two policemen were also killed and authorities said they found the body of a
Saddam Hussein-era intelligence officer who had been kidnapped and shot.

The bloodshed capped a week in which hundreds of Iraqis were killed despite a security crackdown that targeted some of Baghdad's most violent neighborhoods.

A growing number of members of Congress are calling for either a shift in the Bush administration's Iraq strategy or a timetable for beginning a substantial withdrawal of American forces. Although administration officials say progress is being made in Iraq, U.S. commanders have increased U.S. troop levels by about 13,000 over the past five weeks, to 140,000, mainly due to increased violence in the Baghdad area.

In response to the Pentagon's report Friday, the Senate's top Democrat, Harry Reid of Nevada, said it showed the Bush administration is "increasingly disconnected from the facts on the ground in Iraq."

"It is time for a new direction to end the war in Iraq, win the war on terror, and give the American people the real security they deserve," Reid said.

Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., who recently returned from a visit to Iraq, said the report squared with what he saw there.

"Iraq is tipping toward civil war," Reed said.

Col. Thomas Vail, commander of a 101st Airborne brigade operating in the mostly Shiite areas of eastern Baghdad, told reporters at the Pentagon on Friday that an intensified effort to root out insurgents and quell sectarian violence in the capital is bearing fruit, leading to a decrease in sectarian murders in recent days.

"They understand a big stick," he said, referring to a bigger U.S. and Iraqi force confronting militias and others responsible for violence like the barrage of coordinated attacks across eastern Baghdad on Thursday. Iraqi police said they killed at least 64 people and wounded more than 286 within a half hour.

Peter Rodman, the assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, in a separate session with reporters, said that despite progress this summer in reviving the Iraqi economy, raising electricity production and increasing the number of trained Iraqi troops, security conditions have deteriorated.

The report covered the period since the Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki was seated May 20.

From that date through Aug. 11, the average number of attacks per week against Americans and Iraqis was 792, up 24 percent from the previous period of Feb. 11 to May 19. The 792 figure was the highest for any counting period since the war began. The previous high was 641 in the Feb. 11 to May 19 period.

"The last quarter, as you know has been rough," Rodman said. "The levels of violence are up and the sectarian quality of the violence is particularly acute and disturbing."

That assessment was tempered by a degree of optimism that the Iraqi government - with support from U.S. troops - will succeed in quelling the sectarian strife.

Optimism among ordinary Iraqis, however, has declined, the 63-page report said.

When asked if they believe "things will be better" in the future, the percentage of Iraqis responding positively has dropped over the past year - whether they were asked to look ahead six months, one year or five years - according to polling data cited in the report.

"The security situation is currently at its most complex state since the initiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom," the report said, using the U.S. military's name for the war that was launched in March 2003 to topple Saddam Hussein.

One of the most celebrated events during the period on which Friday's report was based was the killing of the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The report said that although this was a major success, al-Qaida remained a threat because of its "resilient, semiautonomous cellular structure."

As chairwoman of the House Republican Conference, Pryce rallies colleagues to the party message.

With the election in about two months and Bush's approval ratings still low - 33 percent in the most recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll - Republicans involved in tight races are avoiding party labels and playing down their ties to the president. On issues from the Iraq war to Amtrak spending, GOP candidates are trying to argue that they don't follow in lockstep.

Among some of the ads:

- In Pennsylvania, Republican Rep. Jim Gerlach tells voters: "When I believe President Bush is right, I'm behind him. But when I think he's wrong, I let him know that, too," Gerlach is in a close contest with Democrat Lois Murphy, who nearly beat him in 2004.

- In Minnesota, where an open Senate seat is at stake, Republican Rep. Mark Kennedy has an ad titled, "Crossing Party Lines," in which he says: "I'm a Republican. On issues like taxes and spending, I vote like it. But on other issues, I cross party lines." In 2002, in his run for the House, a Kennedy ad showed him walking and shaking hands with Bush at the White House. Today, he lists the issues on which he has split from the president.

- In South Florida, heavily populated by retirees, Republican Rep. Clay Shaw criticizes the president's stalled plans to change Social Security and says in his ad, "I represent the state of Florida, not a political party."

Ed Patru, a spokesman for the House Republican campaign committee, shrugged off the latest ads.

"That's nothing new, that's just being a smart campaigner," said Patru, who argued that the candidates were reinforcing the moderate positions that have helped them win in swing districts.

Democrats naturally have a different view.

"What we're seeing is a number of candidates who embraced Bush in previous elections are now treating him like a leper," said Phil Singer, spokesman for the Senate Democratic campaign organization.

Shanto Iyengar, a campaign advertising expert at Stanford University, said the 1974 midterm elections, in the immediate aftermath of President Nixon's Watergate-driven resignation, were similar to today's advertising atmosphere.

"In most congressional races the conventional wisdom is it's all local," Iyengar said. "But every now and then, it is possible to nationalize these races, and I believe all the stars are in place for that in 2006."

New Mexico pollster Brian Sanderoff, who is closely watching the re-election campaign of Rep. Heather Wilson, a moderate Republican, said that as the president's approval ratings drop, "incumbents are becoming even more clear in expressing their independence or distance from the White House."

In Pennsylvania, Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, No. 3 in the GOP Senate leadership, has stood with the president on scores of issues, from abortion to same-sex marriage to taxes. Trailing his Democratic challenger Bob Casey in the polls, Santorum brags about breaking with the administration on Amtrak money.

"And the White House probably called me a lot of things when I fought their efforts to cut Amtrak funding," Santorum says.

Another vulnerable Senate incumbent, Ohio Republican Mike DeWine, has welcomed the president for two events that raised $2 million. Yet his ads have touted his independence and ability to work with Democrats.

In Missouri, Republican Sen. Jim Talent (news, bio, voting record)'s first ad of 2006 said: "Most people don't care if you're red or blue, Republican or Democrat. ... They care about getting things done."

Talent's opponent, Democrat Claire McCaskill, argues that Talent is trying to "reinvent himself" from 2002, when an ad showed Bush praising Talent.

In a reflection of this difficult environment, the White House has decided to concentrate nearly all its resources on the critical fight to keep control of Congress, party officials said, largely stepping away from the governors' races, at least for now.

In Michigan last week, Dick DeVos, a Republican candidate for governor and a longtime contributor to Mr. Bush, startled national Republican Party leaders with a searing attack on the president for failing to meet with the leaders of the Big Three automakers. "We're being ignored here in Michigan by the White House, and it has got to stop," Mr. DeVos said.

His communications director, John Truscott, said the attack was timed to coincide with Mr. Rove's visit to Michigan for a fund-raiser, in an effort to goad Mr. Bush into a response. Asked if the DeVos campaign was worried about angering Mr. Rove, Mr. Truscott said, "That never even crossed our mind."

Representative Thomas M. Davis III of Virginia, who was chairman of the Congressional Republican campaign committee in 2002, said Mr. Rove and the White House seemed measurably less involved this year.

"It's been more of a bunker mentality, don't you think?" Mr. Davis said. "They have been good in terms of raising the money. The problem is, you have a president with a 38 percent approval rating, and it just changes the dynamics of what they can do."

This midterm election presents Mr. Rove with a particularly difficult challenge. Beyond testing his reputation for always finding a way to win, the outcome could determine the extent of Mr. Bush's influence for the rest of his presidency and shape the way he is perceived by history. Mr. Rove has warned associates that a Democratic takeover in Congress would mean an end to Mr. Bush's legislative hopes and invite two years of potentially crippling investigations into the administration.

The White House said that Mr. Rove would consider an interview for this article if it were conducted off the record, with the provision that quotations could be put on the record with White House approval, a condition it said was set for other interviews with Mr. Rove. The New York Times declined.

The diminishment in Mr. Rove's influence reflects the fact that his power is to some extent a function of Mr. Bush's popularity. In some cases, Republican candidates have made a deliberate strategic decision that the way to win is to distance themselves from the White House.

But a central problem, Republicans said, is that Mr. Rove is seen as juggling two potentially conflicting agendas: protecting the president's legacy and taking steps to help Republican candidates win re-election.

Mr. Rove enters the campaign season after a year of personal tumult. Until mid-June he faced the threat of indictment in the investigation into the leak of a C.I.A. officer's identity, and in April, he was stripped of some of his duties in the White House. Mr. Rove was moved from a West Wing corner suite to a smaller windowless office across the hall, a shift one friend said he found demoralizing.

Mr. Rove's associates said that throughout the leak investigation, he was coiled and withdrawn. They said his demeanor brightened the moment he learned he would not be indicted. Associates described him as displaying relentless optimism about an election that is filling Republicans with a sense of doom.

Mr. Rove determines the bulk of the president's schedule and is a crucial figure in determining what Mr. Bush should say this fall. He is the White House's main conduit to conservatives whose willingness to turn out at the polls could help determine the party's success.

Mr. Rove has become a star fund-raiser for the Republican Party, raising $10,357,486 at 75 events in 29 states, according to the Republican National Committee. Mr. Rove runs regular White House meetings, typically at 6:30 a.m. in the White House mess, reviewing high-profile House and Senate races with the White House political director, Sara Taylor, and sometimes with Congressional leaders. He shares his view of the landscape with Mr. Bush in a daily 8:30 a.m. briefing.

Mr. Rove - with Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, and Ms. Taylor, both of whom have assumed a higher profile than in past years - has settled on a narrow strategy to try to minimize Congressional losses while tending to Mr. Bush's political strength. The White House will reprise the two T's of its successful campaign strategy since 2002: terrorism and turnout.

They have determined that control of Congress is likely to be settled in as few as six states and have decided to focus most of the party's resources there, said Republican officials who did not want to be identified discussing internal deliberations. Those states will likely include Connecticut, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington, though officials said the battle lines could shift in coming weeks.

The White House is largely turning away from the 36 governors' races, although Mr. Rove and Mr. Bush will continue to help Republican candidates for governor raise money, party officials said. The decision has broad significance because building a foundation of Republican governors had been a main part of Mr. Rove's goal of creating a long-lasting Republican majority.

The Republican National Committee expects to spend over $60 million, which would be a record, for the midterm elections. Officials say half of that would pay for get-out-the-vote operations in the targeted states.

In states where Mr. Bush's presence could be problematic, like Pennsylvania and Connecticut, the turnout operations give Mr. Rove a way to provide below-the-radar help.

Mr. Mehlman, whom Mr. Rove assigned to master get-out-the-vote techniques years ago, has handed custom compact discs with lists of voters, along with information on their voting and consumer habits, to every state Republican chairman.

One administration official said that Mr. Rove was also looking beyond Mr. Bush's term, to the creation of his library. And he is quietly making his influence felt in the 2008 presidential campaign. Most significantly, the White House has signaled to Bush supporters that they are free to work for Senator John McCain of Arizona, which could provide Mr. Rove a network of intelligence in 2008. Mr. Rove has made clear to associates that he is not supporting any candidate in that race.

Mr. Rove's associates said it was inevitable that his clout would diminish somewhat given the president's declining approval rating and the history of two-term presidents generally weakening by their sixth year in office.

"Anytime you're in the position of being the prime mover, and you've got five people saying we should do it this way and five others saying we should do it that way, you're going to aggravate five people inevitably when you come down with a decision," said Ed Gillespie, a former Republican National Committee chairman. "But Karl is willing to do that, and you're going to get your share of slings and arrows when you are."

Indeed, Democrats - aware of Mr. Rove's reputation for pulling out all the stops when necessary and his ability to call on a shadow political machine of interest groups and donors to attack opponents - said they remained worried about what kind of effort Mr. Rove might unleash in the closing weeks of the campaign.

But the limits of Mr. Rove's influence were made clear this year when he was unable to persuade the speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Allan G. Bense, to run in the Republican primary for Senate against Representative Katherine Harris, whom the party judged to be a weak candidate. Mr. Rove invited Mr. Bense for a sit-down at his vacation home in Rosemary Beach, Fla., as part of a long but failed effort to get him to challenge Ms. Harris for the nomination, said Towson Fraser, a spokesman for Mr. Bense.

And Mr. Rove's associates say he appreciates the need of candidates to distance themselves from the White House to win. But he was described as angered by candidates who he thought were going too far in criticizing Mr. Bush out of concern that attacks could further damage an already weakened president, they said.

Mr. Rove meets in person only infrequently with the Republican heads of the Senate and House campaign committees, Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and Representative Thomas M. Reynolds of New York, though Mrs. Dole said he was always ready to jump on a plane to a fund-raiser at her request.

Mr. Reynolds said the White House had been untiring in raising money and providing surrogates. But he made clear that when it came to the House races, he was running the show.

"I'm the one who put together what I think is our best effort to win a House majority in 2006," Mr. Reynolds said.

In the Ohio Senate race, Mr. Rove has found himself in a back-and-forth with Senator Mike DeWine. Mr. DeWine has at times resisted Mr. Rove's counsel that he employ an unrelenting focus on terrorism, exhibiting what other Republicans described as ambivalence about a television commercial depicting the World Trade Center burning.

Candidates and strategists across the country say that they hear from Mr. Rove infrequently.

Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, chairman of the Republican Governors Association, said he encountered Mr. Rove at a dinner at Vice President Dick Cheney's home here in late July. "We chatted for a minute," Mr. Romney said. "He was interested in how the governors' races were looking. But it was interest as a fellow Republican."