Washington (CNN) — Direct peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians will start Thursday as President Obama urged both sides to come up with a peaceful solution to the long-running Mideast conflict.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is set to play the main role in the talks by hosting a meeting Thursday at the State Department with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.

The two sides will be relaunching talks that have been stalled for a year and a half.

On the eve of the talks, Obama held a working dinner with Abbas, Netanyahu, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan’s King Abdullah II.

“I am hopeful — cautiously hopeful, but hopeful — that we can achieve the goal that all four of these leaders articulated,” Obama said before dinner.

Video: Netanyahu: I didn’t come to make excuses

Video: Abbas: We recognize challenges ahead

Video: Key players in Mideast peace talks

Video: Politics of water in the Middle East

Clinton and Middle East Quartet Representative Tony Blair also attended the dinner. The Quartet consists of the United States, Russia, the United Nations and the European Union.

Netanyahu and Abbas reiterated their goal to come up with a solution and condemned attacks against the Israelis in recent days.

“We don’t seek a brief interlude between two wars, we don’t seek a temporary respite between outbursts of terror,” Netanyahu said. “We seek a peace that will end the conflict between us once and for all… for our generation, our children’s generation and the next.”

Abbas said it was time to end the bloodshed from Israelis and Palestinians.

“We want peace between the two countries … let us sign a formal agreement for peace and put an end to this long period of suffering forever,” he said.

As the talks begin, other issues loom. One immediate threat is the September 26 expiration of Israel’s 10-month freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank.

Another roadblock is the Palestinian view that any two-state solution must include a handover of all the land Israel captured in the 1967 war, along with East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital.

While Netanyahu has expressed openness about a Palestinian state, he also has strong opposition to a Palestinian takeover of East Jerusalem.

Hamas’ control of Gaza also remains a “major problem,” Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat said.

While Gaza is generally considered to be part of any future Palestinian state, Hamas has refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist and is not a part of the talks.

Leaders of Hamas are frequently in conflict with the more moderate Abbas and his Fatah organization, which has the upper hand in the West Bank.

With the U.S. war in Iraq drawing to a close, the Middle East has moved front and center for administration officials.

In earlier remarks from the White House Rose Garden, Obama said that “this moment of opportunity may not soon come again.” However, he also pointed to challenges ahead.

“We are under no illusions,” he said. “Passions run deep … there’s a reason that the two-state solution has eluded previous generations — this is extraordinarily complex and extraordinarily difficult.”

Several top officials close to the negotiations told CNN that it is hard to be optimistic about a peace deal at the moment. They downplayed expectations, saying that nobody directly involved in the talks expects a deal to be reached this week. But simply resuming talks was a critical step, and a comprehensive Middle East peace deal has been one of Obama’s top foreign policy goals, they said.

CNN’s Ed Henry, Alan Silverleib, Hala Gorani and David Molko contributed to this report

Mideast leaders call for end to violence

In a letter sent to the White House, leaders of 17 conservative grass-roots organizations cited reports that the administration is considering using its executive power “to effectively legalize significant numbers of illegal aliens.”

“We strongly urge that you refrain pursuing that tactic,” they wrote. “We believe that such an abuse of power would further polarize the immigration issue, which already is so controversial that reasonable discussion is confounded.”

Only Congress, they argued, “possesses plenary power over making our immigration policy. The administrative branch has limited discretion for dealing with aliens and quite limited policymaking authority.”

The letter, which also cites “abuses of the legislative process” during the health care debate, was signed by members of the Eagle Forum, Judicial Watch, the Family Research Council and a Washington-area segment of the Tea Party movement, among others.

The White House has “come up with a back door plan to bypass the Congress and the American people,” Colin Hanna, head of the group Let Freedom Ring, said at a news conference Monday.

“The administration is terrified that the illegal immigrant population is going to go down further because they want to keep them here in order to give them the amnesty and turn them into voters,” alleged Roy Beck, head of NumbersUSA, which favors tighter immigration restrictions.

At issue is an internal Department of Homeland Security memo outlining multiple options for assisting illegal immigrants in the absence of new legislation.

The 11-page document, titled “Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” describes how to reduce the threat of removal for some undocumented immigrants through various administrative and regulatory changes. It characterizes one potential change as “a non-legislative version of amnesty.”

Among other things, the document describes a draft proposal to “extend benefits and/or protections” to individuals currently “present in the United States without authorization.”

It also mentions the possibility of “deferred action,” defined as “an exercise of prosecutorial discretion.”

The document, initially obtained by GOP Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, indicates the suggestions have the “potential to result in meaningful immigration reform” without congressional action. It acknowledges, however, a broad price tag if the ideas are adopted without restraint.

“While it is theoretically possible to grant deferred action to an unrestricted number of unlawfully present individuals, doing so would likely be controversial, not to mention expensive,” the document says.

Representatives of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services — the Homeland Security agency responsible for drafting the memo — indicated in a statement last month that the document was merely brainstorming.

“Internal memos do not and should not be equated with official action or policy,” the statement noted. The Homeland Security Department “will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation’s entire illegal immigrant population.”

CNN’s Alan Silverleib contributed to this report

Conservatives accuse WH of circumventing immigration laws

“I’m here to tell you that on November 3, the day after this coming election, there will be in Washington, D.C., a Democratic majority in the House and a Democratic majority in the Senate,” Biden said at the Democratic National Committee’s summer meeting in St. Louis, Missouri. He joked, “and were it not illegal, I’d make book on it!”

Paraphrasing Mark Twain, the vice president said that reports of the death of the Democratic Party have been greatly exaggerated.

Polls have shown that congressional Democrats are facing an uphill challenge this year. Biden said that a large part of that has to do with Americans blaming their problems on the people at the top.

“Many [Americans] are stripped of their dignity. And they look out there, and they focus on the only person who’s there, the only one they see — and that’s the president of the United States and the Democratic Congress.”

But come Labor Day, he said, Americans are going to begin to compare the two parties and see major differences.

“When they start to look at the alternative, they’re going to see, and I’m going to get in trouble for saying this … this ain’t your father’s Republican Party. This is the Republican Tea Party,” he said to loud applause.

“The Republican Party of 2010 is the party of repeal and repeat,” he added. “Repeat the old practices of the past. I believe it’s out of step where the American people are. It’s our job between now and the election to draw those distinctions.”

Republicans have consistently hit back at Democrats, saying they are pursuing policies of big government and wasteful spending. GOP leaders argue that the American public, as witnessed in the polls and at Tea Party rallies across the country, are angry at the Democrats and want a change.

Biden: Democrats will keep the House and Senate

Colleagues from his Senate days and others who knew him remembered Stevens on Tuesday, as news of his death was confirmed.

President Barack Obama

“A decorated World War II veteran, Senator Ted Stevens devoted his career to serving the people of Alaska and fighting for our men and women in uniform. Michelle and I extend our condolences to the entire Stevens family and to the families of those who perished alongside Senator Stevens in this terrible accident.”

President George H.W. Bush

“Barbara and I mourn the tragic loss of Senator Ted Stevens, a respected friend of longstanding, and send our most sincere condolences to his family. Ted Stevens loved the Senate; he loved Alaska; and he loved his family — and he will be dearly missed.”

Gov. Sean Parnell, (R) Alaska

“Senator Ted Stevens fought hard for our future in Alaska. He was larger than life. Ted was a lion who retreated before nothing. He was a devoted husband… a loving father. His impact on Alaska will live on in future generations.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, (R) Alaska

“(Monday) night, Alaska lost a hero and I lost a dear friend. The thought of losing Ted Stevens, a man who was known to business and community leaders, Native chiefs and everyday Alaskans as ‘Uncle Ted,’ is too difficult to fathom. His entire life was dedicated to public service — from his days as a pilot in World War II to his four decades of service in the United States Senate. He truly was the greatest of the ‘Greatest Generation.’ The love and respect that Alaskans of all persuasions feel toward Ted Stevens is on a par with what the American people felt towards leaders such as John F. Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ronald Reagan. Ted had the vision of a John Kennedy that Alaskans are an exceptional people who would achieve great things in his lifetime; the compassion of a Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., in devoting his life to alleviating the Third World conditions that plagued Alaska’s Native people; and the unwavering strength of a Ronald Reagan whether fighting for the men and women of our military or for Alaska’s right to develop ANWR and its abundant natural resources.”

Sen. Mark Begich, (D) Alaska

“Alaska has lost one of its greatest statesmen and a true pioneer of our state with the passing of Senator Ted Sevens. Over his four decades of public service in the U.S. Senate, Senator Stevens was a forceful advocate for Alaska who helped transform our state in the challenging years after statehood. Senator Stevens’ many contributions to Alaska are enormous and his legacy of fierce devotion to Alaska will be long-lasting.”

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden

“We at NASA are deeply saddened by today’s news that former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens and others were killed in a plane crash in Alaska that also injured former NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe and his son, Kevin. As a longtime supporter of NASA, Sen. Stevens made lasting contributions to our agency and our country. We at NASA mourn his loss and send our deepest condolences to his family, as well as the families and friends of all who perished in the accident. We also send our best wishes for a speedy recovery to Sean, Kevin, and other survivors of the crash. Our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R) Kentucky/Minority Leader

“It is with deep sadness that Elaine and I note the passing of a friend and former colleague, Senator Ted Stevens. In the history of our country, no one man has done more for one state than Ted Stevens. His commitment to the people of Alaska and his nation spanned decades, and he left a lasting mark on both. From his early military service as a pilot in World War II, to his involvement in the statehood of ‘The Last Frontier,’ to his fierce support and defense of our nation’s military, Ted Stevens was always there, fighting for what he believed in, and usually winning. He was a force to be reckoned with, and we will miss him greatly.”

Sen. Daniel Inouye, (D) Hawaii

“Irene and I are deeply saddened by the tragic death of our dear friend, and my brother, Ted Stevens. Our friendship was a very special one. When it came to policy, we disagreed more often than we agreed, but we were never disagreeable with one another. We were always positive and forthright. Senator Stevens and I worked together to ensure that the small non-contiguous states of Hawaii and Alaska were not forgotten by the lower 48 and to ensure that the nation awoke to the importance of the Pacific for our economy and international relations. I will never forget him.”

Sen. Orrin Hatch, (R) Utah

“Today, America lost a legend, a patriot and a gentle warrior who never stopped fighting for his beloved state of Alaska or for what he believed in. Ted Stevens is irreplaceable — his fierce loyalty and spirit remain unrivalled in the United States Senate. He will be greatly missed, but his legacy will always live on.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R) South Carolina

“I’m very sad to hear of the passing of former Senator Ted Stevens. Senator Stevens was a decorated World War II veteran, and he was truly loved by the people of Alaska. As the longest serving Republican senator in history, he lived a life of incredible accomplishment. He will be greatly missed.”

Sen. Joe Lieberman, (I) Connecticut

“America has lost a great patriot; the state of Alaska has lost a founding father; and I have lost a dear friend. I am deeply saddened by Ted’s death. I knew him for many years as a valued friend, a neighbor and a colleague. We shared many great experiences and I am grateful for all of the wisdom he offered me personally. I treasure the example he set in his career of devoted service to this country in the United States Army Air Force, the United States Senate, and through the many important causes that he championed for the state of Alaska and throughout our country. We, his colleagues and his friends, were particularly blessed with the opportunity to have learned from Ted, who was always doggedly determined to serve the best interests of the people and state that he loved so much. Our occasional differences on legislative issues never adversely affected our abiding friendship. Ted was a giant of the United States Senate, and at a time of extreme political polarization, he inspired a spirit of bipartisanship by reaching across the aisle.”

Sen. Mary Landrieu, (D) Louisiana

“I am deeply saddened to learn of the tragic death of my former colleague and friend, Senator Ted Stevens. Ted was a skilled legislator who mastered the art of principled compromise for the betterment of Alaska and the nation.

“I took a trip to Alaska with Ted in 2007 and quickly found his fingerprints in every corner of the state — from Alaska’s largest cities to the most remote Native villages. Ted always said, ‘To hell with politics. Do what is best for Alaska.’ He never apologized for fighting for his state, and Alaska is better for it today. Ted’s work continues to touch the lives of millions of Americans through his strong support for our military, revolutionizing the nation’s fishing industry, his establishment of the U.S. Olympic Committee, and his persistent efforts to achieve American energy independence.”

Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

“It is with deep regret that I learned of former U.S. Senator Ted Stevens’ tragic death in (Monday) night’s plane crash in Alaska. Our sympathies go out to the Stevens family and all who have lost a loved one. Senator Stevens had a long and active career serving the people of Alaska in the United States Senate and was revered for his unparalleled effectiveness at fighting for his home state interests. He was a colleague and friend to many in the Senate but he was a champion for the people of Alaska. He will be missed.”

Rep. Dave Obey, (D) Wisconsin

“Ted Stevens and I agreed on issues about once a century, but I always enjoyed and appreciated working with him because you always knew exactly where he stood. There was no guile about him. He devoted his life to the State of Alaska, which he dearly loved, and fought for it every day of his life with conviction and passion.”

Sen. John Cornyn, (R) Texas

“This is a sad day for the state of Alaska and our entire nation. When I came to the Senate in 2002, Ted Stevens was already one of the longest serving Republican senators in history. His public service began with his military service in World War II and ended more than 60 years later. He was a dedicated, passionate and faithful public servant for the people of Alaska. But the role he cherished the most was that of husband, father and grandfather.”

Ken Salazar, secretary of the Interior

“Senator Stevens was a friend and colleague. From his courage in World War II, his work for Alaska statehood and his time at the Department of the Interior to his years of leadership in the U.S. Senate, Senator Stevens left behind a lifetime of service. We have lost a dedicated public servant for our country, the United States Senate, and Alaska.”

Dennis DeConcini, former senator (D) Arizona

DeConcini said he had been contacted by Stevens’ staff to see whether he wanted to go on a trip to China with other former senators in November. “I said yes,” DeConcini said, “and I wrote him a note about it; I said, ‘Thanks for thinking of us, we look forward to seeing you.’” DeConcini said only three days ago he got back a handwritten note from Stevens, saying, “I look forward to seeing you. I’m on my way to a fishing trip in Alaska, I’ll call you when I get back.” DeConcini told CNN’s Rick Sanchez he had dinner with Stevens in April. He praised Stevens for being helpful to Arizona’s veterans and Native Americans. “I’m always indebted to him,” DeConcini said. When asked how Stevens was in April, DeConcini said, “He seemed to be doing relatively well, considering all the tragedies and difficulties he’d been through.” DeConcini said he talked to Stevens not long after charges had been dismissed against him. “He said, ‘Well, those things take a toll on you, Dennis.’ And I said, yeah, I know what you mean.” DeConcini called Stevens a “tough guy. He was a strong man. He believed in his state. Sometimes he went overboard when it came to the ‘Bridge to No Place,’ but I saw the clinics he built for the veterans and Native Americans. …

“We used to kid him. We said they’re going to rename that state ‘Stevens,’ you’ve done so much for ‘em.”

Bob Francis, former NTSB vice chair

“Sen. Stevens was probably the biggest advocate in the Senate for aviation safety. And he basically volunteered the state of Alaska for the test program for the next generation of air traffic control. He was enormously knowledgeable. You can see by the amount of activity that is associated with him in Alaska. But he was always not only in the vanguard of aviation safety in Alaska but nationally.”

Sarah Palin, (R) former Alaskan governor

“It’s with great sadness that Todd and I hear the reports coming in of Senator Ted Stevens’ passing in the plane crash near Dillingham. In our land of towering mountains and larger than life characters, none were larger than the man who in 2000 was voted ‘Alaskan of the Century.’ This decorated World War II pilot was a warrior and a true champion of Alaska. In 40 years of service in the U.S. Senate, he fought tenaciously for Alaska’s future. Alaskans know how much we owe to Senator Stevens, but all Americans owe him a debt of gratitude for his leadership on many issues, including the crucial energy issues that fuel American prosperity. Two years ago, he sat at my kitchen table over a salmon lunch, and we talked about our long anticipated Alaska natural gas pipeline and our mutual commitment to have the Last Frontier’s rich resources contribute to America’s quest for energy independence. Our senator was also known for spearheading efforts to ensure equality in education, and his Title IX legislation allowed girls to be on a level playing field in the athletic arena.”

Jack Gerard, president and CEO American Petroleum Institute

“We are saddened (Tuesday) by the news that former Senator Ted Stevens has died in a plane crash. Ted Stevens loved Alaska and cared deeply about his constituents. He understood the importance of the oil and natural gas industry, and he worked tirelessly to help secure a stronger energy future for Alaskans and all Americans.

Former Sen. Ted Stevens remembered

The 136-page opinion, issued by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco, is an initial step in what will likely be a lengthy fight over California’s Proposition 8, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

At stake in the trial was whether California’s ban on same-sex marriage violates gay couples’ rights to equal protection and due process, as protected by the U.S. Constitution.

The high-profile case is being watched closely by both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage, as many say it is destined to make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. If it does, the case could result in a landmark decision on whether people in the United States are allowed to marry people of the same sex.

Video: ‘Today we eliminate discrimination’

Video: ‘This is just the first document’

Video: Same-sex marriage ban overturned

Same-sex marriage is currently legal in five U.S. states and in the District of Columbia, while civil unions are permitted in New Jersey. The five states are Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa and New Hampshire.

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples,” Walker, who was appointed to the federal bench by former President Ronald Reagan, wrote in his opinion.

“Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre,” he added. “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.”

In a separate order, Walker also granted supporters of Proposition 8 a temporary stay, which stops his decision from taking immediate effect. They had argued, prior to his ruling, that same-sex marriages would be performed soon after his decision and could be complicated by rulings and appeals farther down the legal road.

Walker gave both sides in the case until Friday to submit their responses to the order.

Elated supporters of same-sex marriage gathered to celebrate the judge’s opinion in the Castro district of San Francisco. After speeches and songs, they began a march to city hall. People waved rainbow flags and U.S. flags, and carried signs that read, “We all deserve the freedom to marry,” and “Separate is Unequal.” Similar rallies unfolded in cities across California — including Los Angeles and San Diego.

“For our entire lives, our government and the law have treated us as unequal. This decision to ensure that our constitutional rights are as protected as everyone else’s makes us incredibly proud of our country,” said Kristin Perry, a plaintiff.

Perry and Sandy Stier, along with Jeffrey Zarrillo and Paul Katami, are the two couples at the heart of the case, which if appealed would go next to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals before possibly heading to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Opponents of same-sex marriage have said their best bet lies with higher courts, and vowed to appeal the federal judge’s ruling.

In a national survey, conducted by Gallup in May, 53 percent of respondents said same-sex marriages should not be recognized by law, while 44 percent said they should.

Proposition 8 is part of a long line of seesaw rulings, court cases, debates and protests over the controversial issue of same-sex marriage. It passed in California with some 52 percent of the vote in November 2008.

“Big surprise! We expected nothing different from Judge Vaughn Walker, after the biased way he conducted this trial,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. “With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman.”

Judge overturns California’s ban on same-sex marriage

The Obama administration has made clear some troops — no one can say how many — will start withdrawing by next July from stable areas where Afghan forces can provide security.

However, questions over how to measure success and whether the almost 9-year-old war is worth the continuing U.S. investment in lives and resources are gaining prominence as congressional midterm elections approach in November.

In interviews with military and political leaders broadcast Sunday, scenarios presented on what happens next year ranged from guarded optimism to serious concern. While most views followed expected party talking points, all appeared grounded in the common belief that success is vital even as they differed on what it would be.

On CNN’s “State of the Union,” Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan defended the planned troop drawdown next year as a necessary part of strategy.

Video: Levin: ‘Mixed picture’ in Afghanistan

“That date is very visible now,” Levin said, adding: “It’s critical that that date was set to show that it isn’t a blank check, it’s not an open-ended commitment of American troops in the same numbers that we’re going to have there.”

Already, he said, the Afghan army is taking over some aspects of security, which gives a psychological boost to the local population while denying the Taliban insurgents of a propaganda tool.

“When their own people see that, it is going to make a difference,” Levin said. “And when the Taliban sees that they are not able now to just paint this as … a lot of foreign troops present in Afghanistan, but now it’s their own Afghan army, a popular, respected army, that they are taking on more and more during this next year, that that is going to make a difference. That’s a real nightmare for the Taliban to be up against an Afghan-led effort.

On the same program, however, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina worried that the Afghan forces and central government may not be ready to assume the necessary responsibilities within a year.

“[G]enerally speaking, this time next summer, we’re still going to be engaged in one hell of a fight,” Graham told CNN. “We’re going to need every troop we have today, I think, still in Afghanistan next year.”

According to Graham, it will be clear by the end of this year where things stand in Afghanistan.

“If, by December, we’re not showing some progress, we’re in trouble,” he said. “And the question is: what is progress? Without some benchmarks and measurements, it’s going to be hard to sell to the American people a continued involvement in Afghanistan.”

Other Republicans are harsher critics of President Barack Obama’s war strategy, saying that any withdrawal date — regardless of intention — provides a strategic and psychological boost to the enemy.

” … (W)e don’t tell the enemy when it is that we’re going to essentially wave that white flag and say we’re leaving,” former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said on “Fox News Sunday.”

“No, we’re in it to win it. And if we’re not, then the American public needs to know that, too,” Palin said.

Palin acknowledged the nation was tiring of the war that started in October 2001 in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks that year.

“We want to know that if we’re engaged in such activity where we are protecting our own country, we’re helping to protect our allies, we had better be in it for … the long haul,” Palin said. “But we had better be in it to win it or, no, we’re not going to keep supporting this idea of sending innocents, our young men and women, America’s finest, over there for some futile effort.”

In an interview with CBS conducted last week and broadcast Sunday, Obama insisted the mission to prevent terrorists from operating out of Afghanistan was worth the current deployment, including 30,000 additional U.S. troops he ordered in last year to increase the eventual total to about 100,000.

“If I didn’t think that it was important for our national security to finish the job in Afghanistan, then I would pull them all out today,” the president said.

Top military officials emphasized that the draw-down date is part of a strategy, with the actual number of troops withdrawn depending on conditions on the ground. Asked about remarks last month by Vice President Joe Biden that the figure could be “as few as a couple of thousand” troops, Defense Secretary Robert Gates seemed to agree.

“My personal opinion is that drawdowns early on will be of fairly limited numbers, and as we are successful, we’ll probably accelerate,” Gates said on the ABC program “This Week.” But, again, it will depend on the conditions on the ground.”

At the same time, Gates emphasized that it was crucial for the United States to demonstrate a long-term commitment in order to ensure the trust and cooperation of Afghanistan.

“We need to re-emphasize the message that we are not leaving Afghanistan in July 2011,” he said. “We are beginning a process… and the pace will be set by conditions on the ground.”

He welcomed the prognostication by critics that the Taliban fighters will simply hunker down until next July in order to strike after U.S. troops start leaving, saying: “We will be there with a lot of troops.”

The purpose is to ensure stability in order to turn over control to the Afghan government and people, not to embark on nationwide reconstruction, Gates said.

U.S. efforts will focus on “those civilian efforts and governance that help us in our security objectives,” he said.

Adm. Mike Mullen, the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the main goal is to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a safe haven for al Qaeda.

Even though CIA Director Leon Panetta has said only 50 to 100 al Qaeda figures remain in Afghanistan, Mullen made clear that a hard fight remains to enable the Afghan government to defeat Taliban insurgents who harbored al Qaeda in the past.

“We’re at a point now where over the course of the next 12 months, it really is going to, I think, tell the tale which way this is going to go,” Mullen said, later adding: “Certainly the longterm goal is to make sure that, with respect to the population in Afghanistan, that there’s a governance structure that treats its people well. … But to say exactly how that’s going to look and what specifics would be involved, I think it’s just way too early.”

Influential Democrats, meanwhile, signaled the growing impatience in their ranks for a war effort that continues to inflict an economic and human toll.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told the ABC program that she hopes that next year’s withdrawal brings home more than the “couple of thousand” troops Biden had predicted.

At the same time, Pelosi acknowledged “it’s not going to be turn out the lights and let’s all go home in one day.”

Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts told CNN that Obama was determined to bring the conflict to a new phase that allows a U.S. drawdown.

“He is also determined not to undermine his own effort and not to undermine the military effort on the ground, and the sacrifice that our troops have made,” Kerry said. “The president is not going to suddenly pull the rug out from under the very efforts that we’ve all been engaged in over these years. That would be folly. And I don’t see him doing that.”

Graham, who has sided with Democrats on some issues, expressed concern that some anti-war elements of both the political left and right could undermine the war effort.

“You know what I worry most about: an unholy alliance between the right and the left,” Graham said. “That there are some Republicans who are not going to take a, you know, do-or-die attitude for Obama’s war. There are some Republicans that want to make this Obama’s war. … There will be some Republicans saying you can’t win because of the July 2011 withdrawal date, he’s made it impossible for us to win, so why should we throw good money after bad?”

Graham added that liberals could also refuse to back the president’s plans in Afghanistan.

“You’ve got people on the left who are mad with the president because he is doing exactly what [former President George W.] Bush did and we’re in a war we can’t win,” Graham said, adding: “My concern is that, for different reasons, they join forces and we lose the ability to hold this thing together.”

Midterms put focus on Afghan draw-down

The president and Sherrod spoke by telephone after Obama apparently had some trouble getting through to her. Afterward, Sherrod told CNN that the call was “very, very good.”

Obama offered his support and said the two had faced similar issues in their pasts, Sherrod said.

However, she said they didn’t discuss whether the White House had a role in her ouster by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, which came after misleading and incomplete video footage of a speech she gave was posted on the internet and picked up in media reports.

“He didn’t go into that,” Sherrod said. “He wanted to reassure me that Secretary Vilsack was truly sincere … with his efforts to rid the agency of discrimination.”

Asked how it felt to talk to the president, Sherrod said: “Oh, gosh, you know, it was great.

“He’s the president of the United States of America. I respect him as that. I appreciate him as that,” Sherrod said. “And it felt like talking to someone else just sitting in the front of the car here.”

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama personally apologized to Sherrod in the phone call but did not lobby for her to take another job at the Department of Agriculture, as offered by Vilsack.

“This was not, ‘Hey, Shirley, take this job,’ ” Gibbs said at the White House. “That was not the specific purpose of the call.”

The president’s office sent Sherrod a text message indicating that Obama had been trying to get in touch with her, Sherrod told CNN producer Julie O’Neill.

Sherrod said she called the White House and was given another number to call. She dialed that number a few minutes later and spoke with the president.

According to O’Neill, Sherrod declined to have the phone call videotaped by CNN.

A White House statement said the two spoke for seven minutes.

“The president expressed to Ms. Sherrod his regret about the events of the last several days,” the statement said. “He emphasized that Secretary Vilsack was sincere in his apology yesterday, and in his work to rid USDA of discrimination.”

According to the statement, Obama also told Sherrod “that this misfortune can present an opportunity for her to continue her hard work on behalf of those in need, and he hopes that she will do so.”

The flap began after conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart last week posted a portion of a speech Sherrod gave in which she spoke of not offering her full help to a white farmer. The original post by Breitbart indicated that the incident Sherrod mentioned occurred when she worked for the Agriculture Department, and news outlets quickly picked up on the story.

However, the incident took place decades before she joined the department, and her speech in its unedited form made the point that people should move beyond race. In addition, the white farmer who Sherrod mentioned has told reporters that she helped him save his farm.

Sherrod was forced to resign Monday, but when the full story came out Tuesday, the White House pressured Vilsack to reconsider. Both Vilsack and Gibbs issued apologies to Sherrod on Wednesday, and Vilsack said he offered her another job in the Agriculture Department.

At the same time, White House aides said Wednesday on condition of not being identified by name that Obama was unlikely to call Sherrod or personally interject himself in the race-tinged controversy.

One aide said there wouldn’t be any more “beer summits,” a reference to the White House meeting Obama held last year amid the controversy over the arrest of Harvard law professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.

Gates, who is African-American, was arrested at his home by police Sgt. James Crowley, who is white, in what amounted to a misunderstanding. After Obama criticized the arrest, an ensuing uproar led to the White House discussion over beer involving Obama, Gates, Crowley and Vice President Joe Biden.

Until Thursday’s phone discussion between Sherrod and Obama, the White House had tried to separate the president from the issue by emphasizing that Obama played no role in the decision to force Sherrod to resign.

None of that mattered to Sherrod on Thursday. She said Obama was so easy to talk to that she invited him to visit south Georgia, where she is from. There was no word on whether the president would accept her invitation.

Obama talks with USDA employee forced out of her job

Brad Knickerbocker,

Peter Grier,

It also asked the federal courts to grant an injunction to stop enforcement of the measure before it takes effect late this month.

Arizona’s law requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and allows police to question the residency status of people in the course of enforcing another law. It also targets businesses that hire illegal immigrant laborers or knowingly transport them.

Justice Department lawyers argued in its brief that the state statute should be declared invalid because it has improperly preempted federal law.

“A state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws,” the brief states. “The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country.”

The Arizona law “disrupts federal enforcement priorities and resources that focus on aliens who pose a threat to national security or public safety. … If allowed to go into effect, [the law's] mandatory enforcement scheme will conflict with and undermine the federal government’s careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives.”

Arizona is interested only in “attrition” in order to end illegal entries and has not addressed several other federal obligations to deal with immigrants, including removal proceedings, humanitarian concerns and foreign relations, the brief contends.

President Barack Obama said in a speech July 1 that the measure has “fanned the flames of an already contentious debate.” Among other things, it puts pressure on police officers to enforce rules that are “unenforceable” while making communities less safe — in part, by making people more reluctant to report crimes, he said.

It also has “the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents, making them subject to possible stops or questioning because of what they look like or how they sound.”

Before the government’s filing, Arizona’s two senators, both Republicans, called the Obama administration move “far too premature.”

“Moreover, the American people must wonder whether the Obama administration is really committed to securing the border when it sues a state that is simply trying to protect its people by enforcing immigration law,” Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain said in a statement.

Democratic Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick called the lawsuit a “sideshow” in a statement released before it was officially filed.

“A court battle between the federal government and Arizona will not move us closer to securing the border or fixing America’s broken immigration system,” she said.

Arizona’s Republican governor, Jan Brewer, has accused the Obama administration of failing to secure the border with Mexico, thereby forcing her state to act on its own.

“Do your job. Secure the border,” Brewer said of the president in a July 1 speech to a Republican group. She pledged to “defend this law against every assault, including attacks by the Obama administration.”

Obama renewed his push for comprehensive immigration reform last week, calling for bipartisan cooperation on an issue reflecting deep social and political divisions.

Seeking an elusive middle ground on the subject, the president highlighted the importance of immigrants to American history and progress while acknowledging the fear and frustration many feel with a system that he said seems “fundamentally broken.”

He asserted that the majority of Americans are ready to embrace reform legislation that would help resolve the status of an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants.

In his July 1 speech, Obama warned that rounding up everyone in the country who has entered illegally would be both “logistically impossible” and “tear at the fabric of the nation.” At the same time, the president indicated it would be wrong to offer blanket amnesty for people who came into the United States unlawfully.

Despite Obama’s call for bipartisan immigration reform, several senior Democratic sources said Thursday that they see virtually no chance of Congress taking up such a measure before November’s midterm elections.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. national poll conducted in late May indicated that public support for beefing up security along the U.S. border with Mexico had grown significantly. According to the survey, nearly nine out of 10 Americans want to increase U.S. law enforcement along the border with Mexico.

Eight in 10 questioned also supported a program that would allow illegal immigrants already in the United States to stay here and apply for legal residency, provided they had a job and paid back taxes.

But only 38 percent say that program should be a higher priority than border security and other get-tough proposals. Six in 10 said border security was the higher priority.

CNN’s Terry Frieden, Bill Mears and Alan Silverleib contributed to this report

Feds challenge Arizona immigration law