The envoy to Iraq, Gianni Magazzeni, said 34,452 civilians were killed and more than 36,000 hurt during the year.

The figure is nearly three times higher than calculations previously made on the basis of Iraqi interior ministry statistics for 2006.

By Bill O'Reilly

It is my contention that no matter what happens in Iraq in the future, the world press will spin it negative as long as President Bush is in the White House. Quite simply, most of the media believe the Iraq conflict is a disaster, and even if things were to improve there, the media now have a vested interest in America's failure. Thus, honest assessments about the war in Iraq will be hard to come by.

I'll back up my belief by pointing to two facts. First, The New York Times summed up President Bush's speech on Iraq this way: "There is nothing ahead but even greater disaster in Iraq." That doesn't leave The Times much wiggle room, does it?

And second, the execution of Saddam. We now know that the Bush administration asked the Iraqi government to postpone the hanging by two weeks, at least. The Iraqis said no and demanded the dictator be handed over. The president complied.

The Iraqis then totally botched the execution, and the long knives came out. The American press pounded the Bush administration for being incompetent once again. NBC's Tom Brokaw called the execution a "Wild West hanging," and flat out said it would lead to more violence in Iraq.

Well, so far, violence levels have not risen, and while Mr. Brokaw is certainly entitled to his opinion on the Wild West front, I can only wonder what the anti-Bush press would have said if the USA had not handed Saddam over to the Iraqis. The likely headline would have been something like: "Bush Insults the Iraqi Justice System." The articles and punditry would have emphasized that America was usurping Iraqi authority.

At this point, Mr. Bush cannot win in Iraq, no matter what he does. If he tries to pull victory out of chaos by sending in more troops, the press condemns him as delusional. If he were to draw down troops and the violence ramped up, then the press would hammer him for losing the war and creating more instability in the Middle East.

So now the president is giving Iraq one more chance to fight for its freedom. He will be vilified for doing it. But he should do it. Iraq is that important.

Bill O'Reilly is a nationally syndicated columnist, host of the Fox News show 'The O'Reilly Factor' and author of the book 'Who's Looking Out For You?'

By Lawrence Kudlow

Amidst all the pessimism about the U.S. strategy-shift in Iraq, world financial markets seem to be voting for President Bush and his plan -- not against. On the days immediately preceding the president's speech, as its contents leaked out, oil prices were plunging and stock prices rising. And right after the speech, when the contents of the Iraq plan were clear, guess what? Oil prices continued to fall, and share prices hit record highs.

...President Bush's overhauled Iraq strategy, including a tougher line on Iran, is viewed by investors as a plus for Middle East security. Two large aircraft carrier groups and 16,000 sailors have been positioned in the Persian Gulf. There also are indications the U.S. will provide Patriot anti-missile defense systems to allies in the region. So, putting all this together, geopolitical risk premiums are declining -- hence lower oil prices.

While pundits and politicians say the new Bush plan won't work, market investors are voting with their money for a much more positive verdict. And after surveying the details of the new Iraq strategy, I'm casting my lot with the investors.

Political opposition by Democrats and Republicans to Mr. Bush's new strategy may be hardening, but financial markets point to a much more positive scenario. Might the president's new plan actually work? World markets are saying give it a chance. I agree.

Lawrence Kudlow is host of CNBC's "Kudlow & Company" and is a nationally syndicated columnist.

By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey

Congressional Democrats (and Republicans) who oppose President Bush's decision to send additional American troops to Iraq may frustrate his plan, but not -- as suggested by Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn -- by imposing 21,500 strings on the 21,500 new troops. Just as there are constraints on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief, there are limits on Congress's ability to direct presidential action. In particular, Congress cannot use its power of the purse to micromanage the president's execution of his office. Indeed, although the prosecution of the Iraq war looms large in today's political discourse, the consequences of substantive decisions related to the war are dwarfed by the imperatives of protecting the integrity of the core rules governing interactions between the executive and legislative branches, which are rooted in our distinctive constitutional fabric.

This constitutional fabric features two coordinate political branches, with unique responsibilities and independent legitimacies. Thus, even if one assumes that, as critics allege, the November election results were a call for disengaging from Iraq, efforts by some congressional Democrats to chastise the president through a resolution of "no confidence" in his Iraq policy have no place in our constitutional culture. The Framers did not establish a parliamentary system.

This does not mean, of course, that Congress is powerless. It could -- if the leadership mustered veto-proof majorities -- immediately cut off funding for U.S. operations in Iraq. Alternatively, Congress could refuse to pass new appropriations once the current ones expire. The refusal to pay for particular policies -- whether in war or peace -- has been the most important check on executive power in the Anglo-American political tradition, dating to the British Parliament's ancient insistence on the right to seek redress of grievances before voting supplies (i.e., money) to the monarch. Under our constitutional system, however, the power to cut off funding does not imply the authority to effect lesser restrictions, such as establishing benchmarks or other conditions on the president's direction of the war. Congress cannot, in other words, act as the president's puppet master, and so long as currently authorized and appropriated funding lasts, the president can dispatch additional troops to Iraq with or without Congress's blessing.

Although this system may seem unsatisfactory to those who disagree with President Bush's Iraq policy, it has two great virtues. First, it bolsters the Constitution's fundamental design -- the separation of powers between the coequal branches of government. The Framers vested executive authority in a president for a reason. As Alexander Hamilton explained in the Federalist Papers: "Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks." Second, requiring Congress to exercise its power in dramatic ways ensures political accountability. If Congress believes the war is lost, or not worth winning, it must take responsibility for the consequences of forcing a U.S. withdrawal. Otherwise, it must leave the president to direct the war and to bear responsibility for the decisions he has made and will make. 

By Walter Pincus, Washington Post Staff Writer

The Kurdish makeup of two of the three Iraqi army brigades due to be sent to Baghdad under President Bush's new strategic plan is drawing concern from Iraqi and U.S. experts.

Questions have been raised about whether the Kurds would fight Sunni insurgents in Baghdad at a time when some Sunni clerics and organizations have spoken out against aiding U.S. troops and the Iraqi government. But there is also concern that the soldiers would be heavy-handed if sent into heavily Shiite areas.

A former senior CIA operations officer who is familiar with Iraq said yesterday that sending the units into Baghdad "will not make many friends for the Kurds, depending on where they go." But, said the officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, "if you are going in to clear a majority-Sunni area, better to use Kurdish rather than Shia troops. . . . They are obviously better than Iraqi police and more professional."

But the deployment holds appeal for the Kurdistan Regional Government, because in return, the Baghdad government would be ready to provide it an additional share of the national budget, a Kurdish official told the New Anatolian, a Kurdish newspaper, last week.

At a hearing Friday of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the deployment of the Kurds in Baghdad could bring "balance in that they are not either for Sunnis or for Shia but for Iraq." But Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) countered, "I think they are for the Kurds."

Rep. Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record), the iconoclastic, nine-term lawmaker from southeast Texas, took the first step Thursday toward a second, quixotic presidential bid — this time as a Republican.

Kent Snyder, the chairman of Paul's exploratory committee and a former staffer on Paul's Libertarian campaign, said the congressman knows he's a long shot.

Paul limits his view of the role of the federal government to those duties laid out in the Constitution. As a result, he sometimes casts votes at odds with his constituents and other Republicans.

He was one of a handful of Republicans to vote in 2002 against giving President Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq, contending that only Congress had the power to declare war. At times, he has voted against funds for the military.

Paul bills himself as "The Taxpayers' Best Friend," and is routinely ranked either first or second in the House by the National Taxpayers Union, a national group advocating low taxes and limited government.

Ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro has had at least three failed operations and complications from an intestinal infection and faces "a very grave prognosis," a Spanish newspaper reported Tuesday.

A Cuban diplomat in Madrid said the reports were lies and declined to comment.

The newspaper El Pais cited two unnamed sources from the Gregorio Maranon hospital in the Spanish capital of Madrid. The facility employs surgeon Jose Luis Garcia Sabrido, who flew to Cuba in December to treat the 80-year-old Castro.

In a report published on its Web site, El Pais said: "A grave infection in the large intestine, at least three failed operations and various complications have left the Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro, laid up with a very grave prognosis."

The U.S. government had speculated that Castro could suffer from cancer — a supposition denied by Sabrido. Some U.S. doctors believed Castro was suffering from diverticular disease, which can cause bleeding in the lower intestine, especially in people over 60. In severe cases, emergency surgery may be required.

A statement attributed to Castro was released on New Year's Eve saying his recovery was "far from being a lost battle."

Cuban officials told visiting U.S. lawmakers last month that Castro does not have cancer or a terminal illness and will eventually return to public life, although it was not clear whether he would return to the same kind of absolute control as before.

Forced by allegations of misconduct to recuse himself, the prosecutor who drove the Duke lacrosse sexual assault case could end up losing much more than the opportunity to try a case he still believes in.

For Mike Nifong, the missteps of the past 10 months have the potential to end a career that started nearly three decades ago, when he signed up at the Durham County district attorney's office as an unpaid assistant.

Nifong asked the state attorney general's office Friday to take over the case of three lacrosse players accused of sexually assulting a stripper hired to perform at a team party.

Now, he must now defend himself against ethics charges that could lead to his being stripped of his law license. Should Attorney General Roy Cooper dismiss the case against Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann — and legal experts have said there appears to be little evidence to support the charges — their families might try to sue Nifong.

As a prosecutor, Nifong enjoys broad but not absolute immunity from civil litigation, and the families of the indicted players have hinted they plan to sue. Asked in an interview with CBS' "60 Minutes" what she would say to Nifong should they meet, Evans' mother said, "Mr. Nifong, you've picked on the wrong families ... and you will pay every day for the rest of your life."

Carey Roberts

A few years ago Democratic pollster Celinda Lake sounded the alarm that the Dems needed to reach out to male voters, or else resign itself to becoming a party of the perpetual minority. At first everyone laughed her off.

Then candidate John Kerry disastrously admitted in the 2004 campaign that his wife and daughters “kick me around,” and New York Times writer Frank Rich accused Kerry of being a Girlie-Man.

So after the Dems counted their losses and licked their wounds, Representative Rahm Emanuel, Senator Charles Schumer, and John Lapp, former director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, sat down for a long, hard talk. They decided to put together a new game plan -- one that would feature new faces, all men – check that, macho men.

Why? Because “Presidential politics, but also the rest of national political leadership, has a lot to do with the understandable desire of voters for leadership, strength, clarity, and sureness,” according to Jim Jordan, John’s Kerry’s first presidential campaign manager. [www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/weekinreview/07lizza.html]

So what about the muscularity quotient of the Republican Party?

Honestly, we’d have to say it’s a mixed bag. President Bush certainly comes across as courageous, resolute, and steady at the helm. Maybe not in the same league as a Brett Favre or John Elway, but certainly stands tall in the pocket.

It’s no secret, men and women view the world through a different prism. Men value self-reliance, risk-taking, and action. Men are put off by the primping, pouting, and pontificating of celebrity-types like Rosie and Roseanne.

In contrast, women are more interested in safety and security, even if it means an occasional intrusion of the Nanny State. As columnist Allison Brown put it, “Most women are natural socialists.”

Yes, we want women to support our issues. But if you lean too far in casting your message to the members of the fairer sex, you risk betraying your core principles as the standard-bearer of limited government and fiscal restraint.

It’s no secret that the Republican party is in disarray. Its conservative base is in revolt, a front-runner for the 2008 race has yet to emerge, and the president’s governing strategy with the Dems remains in flux.

So Republicans, it’s time to field your veteran players.

Carey Roberts analyzes and lampoons political correctness. His best-known work is an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism. Mr. Roberts’ work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show and has been published regularly in The Washington Times. Besides serving as a Guest Writer for OpinionEditorials.com, he has published at LewRockwell.com, ifeminists.net, Men’s News Daily, and elsewhere.

CareyRoberts@comcast.net

Wisconsin prizes its history as a lab for progressive ideas, but customizing the Constitution may not be one the rest of the country wants to embrace.

On Tuesday the City Council in Madison will vote whether elected officials or city appointees can add to their oath of office, in which they swear to uphold the state and federal constitutions, a rejection of the parts they don't like. It started when Wisconsin amended its constitution to ban gay marriage, and a member of the city's Equal Opportunities Commission resigned rather than swear the traditional oath. Members of that board in particular, which is charged with protecting civil rights, felt torn about promising to uphold laws they felt were discriminatory. So the Council will debate whether public servants, during their swearing-in, can state that the oath was taken under protest and vow to work to strike "this section from the constitution and work to prevent any discriminatory impacts from its application." That way, supporters of the "anti-oath" say, they can take the oath with a clear conscience.

"Our Constitution," FDR said, "was not a perfect instrument, it is not perfect yet; but it provided a firm base upon which all manner of men of all races, colors and creeds could build our solid structure of democracy." That base becomes less firm when public servants, whether President or city commissioner, get to remove whichever pieces they dislike.

It seems that many in our media want to elect Senator Barack Hussein Obama as president. In fact, the October 23, 2006 issue of Time magazine ran a cover story with Obama's picture and the headline, "Why Barack Obama Could Be The Next President." In another edition, Time magazine named Obama one of "the world's most influential people," and included him on a list of 20 "Leaders and Revolutionaries." What's behind the media hype?

The first thing that must be said is that, true to form, reporters are acting like Democrats, which they probably are. After Obama won the Democratic nomination for Senator in 2004, one of Obama's opponents in the primary, Illinois' Cook County Treasurer Maria Pappas, called him "The Tiger Woods of the Democratic Party." The love affair for Obama even extends to the senior Senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin, who started an online petition urging Obama to run for President. It is posted on Durbin's campaign website. 

Together, the Democrats and their media allies have created a kind of hysteria. A recent Associated Press story awarded Obama "rock star-like status" after his meeting with former Pepsi spokesman and rapper/actor Ludacris. 

But even with the media's and Democratic Party's infatuation with Obama, shouldn't the future leader of the free world and president of the most powerful nation on Earth have a little more experience than being a freshman Senator from Illinois and a Grammy winner? 

Here's what is in the public record: Prior to being elected to the U.S. Senate, Obama served seven years in the Illinois state Senate, made an unsuccessful campaign for a U.S. House of Representatives seat in 2000 (losing the Democratic primary to a former Black Panther), and wrote an autobiography, a book about his political positions, and a children's book.

So what we know is that the junior Senator from Illinois has received accolades from the media and has many star-studded supporters, including actor George Clooney, who appears on the Senator's website while Obama speaks "about the crisis in Darfur."