Several internal inquiries are being conducted into the government and the army's handling of the 34-day conflict.

The military was widely criticised for failing to achieve its war aims.

"That is why the Democrats have been wriggling uncomfortably in their response to Bush's new approach. My colleague Rich Lowry on the National Review asks: 'Why don't the Democrats have the intellectual honesty to say that they think the war is lost and that we should get out of Iraq?'"

"So what holds them back? There are four reasons for their caution--three of which represent hangovers from Vietnam:

First, they fear being blamed for the consequences that might flow from a U.S. withdrawal. These could include massacres of Sunni Muslims in Iraq, ethnic cleansing, refugees flooding into Jordan and Saudi Arabia or Iran, the overthrow of friendly regimes in the region, a wider war, and so on. After Vietnam we forgot about the region for two decades. That helped the doves of both parties to avoid responsibility for the Cambodian genocide and the Vietnamese boat people. The Middle East is too important to be neglected in this way. Similar disasters would be widely debated -- and maybe laid at their door.

Second, Bush's new policy might succeed and make the Democrats' defeatism look foolish and unpatriotic. Admittedly, this is unlikely -- the odds are now against the president -- but it is not impossible. If it were to happen, Bush might be hailed in the Middle East as a liberator.

Third, Democrats could seem to be weak on national security even if the public agrees with them on withdrawal. Most Americans were against continued U.S. participation in the Vietnam War by 1970, but they wanted neither an American defeat nor a North Vietnamese victory. By cutting off all support to the South Vietnamese, the Democrats gave the impression of not really caring about the U.S. defeat and even welcoming it as a punishment for American arrogance. Under President Jimmy Carter, they went further and embraced the post-Vietnam Syndrome of reluctance to get involved abroad. When this led to the worldwide depiction of the U.S. as a "pitiful, helpless giant," Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviets and American diplomats were held hostage in Tehran. It has taken 15 years for the Democrats to shake off the reputation as weak on national security that they then gained. They won't risk regaining it over Iraq.

Finally, the Democrats are rationally nervous of being too closely identified with their grass-roots extremists and the "politics of anger" they embody. In an important new book, A Bee in the Mouth, (Encounter Books, N.Y.), Peter Wood points out that the expression of self-righteous anger has become mainstream on the Internet and that some of its harshest practitioners, such as Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of the Web site Daily Kos, have become influential inside the Democratic establishment and with figures such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The latter believe they are tapping into a reservoir of public anti-Bush anger via these intermediaries. But Zuniga has expressed such harsh sentiments as "I feel nothing. . . . Screw them" about the four American contractors who were lynched in Iraq. If the Democrats hew too closely to the "angry left" today, they risk suffering the same taint of extremism marked their association with the anti-war movement in the 1970s."

Excerpts from an article by Stephen Slivinski (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6955)

"The new Congress has agreed to take action on earmarks, the budget items best known as 'pork projects.' Think, for instance, of the $13.5 million that helped subsidize last year's World Toilet Summit in Ireland, an expenditure worthy of inescapable jests about fiscal incontinence."

"In a mostly party-line 280-152 vote last Friday, the House passed rules changes requiring that both the spending projects and their sponsors be disclosed on the internet at least 48 hours before they are considered on the floor. Congressmen will also be required to justify the public need for the expenditures, and certify that they won't benefit financially from them."

"Nobody can really object to such a reform. It's certainly a good idea to shed some light on what now-convicted über-lobbyist Jack Abramoff called the "favor factory." But we should be realistic about what these reforms can achieve. The impact is likely to be minimal."

"So we probably won't soon see an end to handouts like the half-a-million in taxpayer funds that went to the Sparta Teapot Museum in North Carolina in 2005. Earmark transparency is merely a beginning. A good first step for sure, but hardly the endgame of fundamental budget reform. Future reforms should create an incentive to actually reduce the scope of government overall. In the meantime, it's important to remember that as long as a culture of spending persists in Washington – fueled by a budget process that allows Uncle Sam to be all things to all people – then no matter who is in power, earmarking in some form will always be with us."

This article appeared in the January 22, 2007 issue of Business Week.

CBS's "Sixty Minutes" broadcast Sunday showed many people the gross abuse of prosecutorial power in the Duke rape case.

Another trial featuring questionable use of prosecutorial power is beginning in Washington, D.C. I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, then chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, is charged with having lied to a grand jury about from whom he learned that Valerie Plame Wilson worked at the CIA.

Liberals rushed to condemn the Duke lacrosse players because they loved the narrative: rich white guys abuse poor black woman. Some furious backtracking is taking place as evidence of their innocence mounts. A new verb, to "nifong," has been coined. It's a synonym for "to frame."

Liberals also loved the original narrative in the Plame case: Bush aides persecute whistle blower. But the disclosure that Mr. Armitage was the source demolishes it as thoroughly as the DNA evidence has discredited Mr. Nifong.

Those who wonder why Mr. Nifong went forward with the Duke prosecution after receiving the DNA results should wonder also why Mr. Fitzgerald has persisted despite learning that no crime was committed when Ms. Plame's name was leaked, and that Mr. Armitage (who has not been indicted) was the leaker. Is to "fitzgerald" a synonym for to "nifong?"

By Scot Lehigh, Globe Columnist (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/01/16/another_chance_for_gore/)

THE PRESIDENTIAL primary campaign is now underway, and though neither has yet declared, the Democratic main event is already being framed as a contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Each, however, comes with sizable drawbacks.

"More and more people are asking, 'What about Al Gore?' " says Steve Grossman, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee. "If Al Gore were to announce for president, he would be a first-tier candidate on day one. Instead of it being Hillary and Obama on the covers of the national magazines, you would have three faces there."

Publicly, Gore hasn't ruled out running, but neither has he evinced much interest.

The passage of time has a way of putting things and people in perspective, and six-plus years after he won the national popular vote but lost the presidency by half a whisker in Florida, Gore looks good.

While other candidates boast of the international expertise they have acquired in the Senate, Gore, as Bill Clinton's number two, was actually there executing foreign policy in the White House. And unlike the other hopefuls who claim foreign policy credentials, he issued a clear and forceful warning about the dangers of rushing to war with Iraq, arguing that launching an invasion, particularly one undertaken largely on our own, would hurt our ability to win the larger war on terror.

Some fear he could lose his much-admired status if he runs and loses again, thereby adding a third failed presidential campaign to his personal history.

As Democrats eye the White House, Gore is a could-be candidate who combines experience, knowledge, and ability in compelling proportions. In a field that lacks a truly convincing figure, that combination would make him a formidable candidate if he decides to run.

Scot Lehigh's e-mail address is lehigh@globe.com.  

The average freedom score this year for the 157 countries ranked is the second highest since we began measuring economic freedom 13 years ago. It is down a fraction from last year, but each region of the globe enjoys greater economic freedom than it did a decade ago. Hong Kong, Singapore and Australia are the three freest economies in the world this year, in that order. The U.S. ranks No. 4. Among the 20 freest economies in the world, Europe holds 12 places. (The rankings are here.)

Russia has delivered new anti-aircraft missile systems to Iran and will consider further requests by Tehran for defensive weapons, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said on Tuesday.

"We have supplied the modern short-range anti-aircraft systems TOR-M1 in accordance with our contracts," Ivanov told reporters. "Iran is not under sanctions and if it wants to buy defensive ... equipment for its armed forces then why not?"

Washington and Israel have criticised the contract to supply the TOR-M1 missiles to Iran, saying Tehran could use them against its neighbors.

The Russian military insists that the missile systems will protect Iran from air attacks, but do not pose a threat to neighboring countries.

Ehud Olmert's Kadima Party is on the skids. The weekend opinion polls showed that if elections were held today, the Likud would win 29 Knesset seats while Kadima, which now controls the government with 29 seats, would fall to 12 seats. But elections are anything but a foregone conclusion, and if his colleagues have their way, his political destruction will not bring about elections but simply pave the way for their ascension to power, just as Ariel Sharon's massive stroke paved Olmert's path to the premiership.

Indeed, this week Olmert's two principal deputies, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman, were veritably basking in the heat of his political infernos. Both used their photo-ops with visiting US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to present themselves to the Israeli public as Olmert's rightful heirs - the leaders with the big ideas and the international cachet that we can turn to in our hour of need.

Gingrich says Republicans should follow the lead of Ronald Reagan and define the opposition on specific issues, the Washington Times reports.

"Ronald Reagan understood that arguments should be made where we have huge advantages with virtually all Americans," Gingrich says. "He was brilliant at avoiding base-narrowing appeals and emphasizing base-broadening appeals."

Gingrich blames flawed strategy for the Republicans' loss of both houses of Congress in the November election.

Baghdad: After the announcement of US President George W. Bush's new strategy on Iraq, the political Shiite leaderships are heading towards the Supreme Shiite Authorities in Najaf.

Some sources confirmed that Shiites are preparing a plan to settle the Iranian influence in Iraq and the fate of the Mehdi Army led by Al Sadr before the stable Shiite-American relationship turns to escalation and confrontation.

The Shiite coalition faces an inner discord between two sectors.

"The perfect foundation of any new security plan set by either President Bush or Al Maliki is to achieve a balance in fighting extremists on both sides," said Ala'a Makki, a leader in the Sunni Accordance Front, to Gulf News.