Slowly, the debate on the way forward in Iraq appears to be moving onto a new track, as the death toll in the country quickly rises. It is not surprising that the criticism is sharper, and the debate has a new intensity and scope.

Last week, President George W. Bush took the surprising step of inviting 13 former US secretaries of state and defence to discuss Iraq. He heard strong criticism, and was reminded that the war was wanted by and not forced on the United States. But no one recommended a quick American withdrawal.

Bush wants to maintain his course, and not "run away" but gradually transfer responsibility to the Iraqis. Whether that will work, with insurgents moving the country closer and closer to civil war, remains highly doubtful.

Criticism has also come from unexpected sources, such as the new German chancellor ? Angela Merkel ? demanding that the US close the Guantanamo base on Cuba. Such a facility cannot and must not exist, she said before her first visit to the US as chancellor.

Opposition is becoming stronger and stronger for Bush. Time is running out in Iraq.

Sometimes the most obvious of strategies can be sidetracked in the struggle to please. A government grant programme begun more than two years ago by the Department of Homeland Security to finance anti-terrorism efforts in urban areas got way off track by trying to accommodate everyone with their hands out.

Only Washington belt-tightening forced Homeland Security to re-evaluate how it distributes its domestic security funding. With limited resources, the federal agency finally did what it should have done when the Urban Area Security Initiative was first announced in 2003. Instead of doling out millions to cities based on boundaries and political considerations, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff recently announced a new system of funding American cities based more on risk assessment, or where terrorists are most likely to strike and cause the most damage.

What a concept. ...

The brouhaha over extending the Patriot Act raises a significant question for the Bush administration. If the anti-terrorism measures are as critical to the nation's safety as President Bush insists, then why did the White House leave its reauthorisation to the last minute?

Throughout 2005, the administration's domestic agenda was chock-full of all kinds of initiatives, from Social Security reform to overhauling the tax code to even intruding on the Terri Schiavo case.

Approved in haste after the September 11 attacks, the Patriot Act was known to have flaws. But there wasn't time during that scary fall of 2001 for Congress to carefully iron out the wrinkles. That's why lawmakers put a 2005 expiration date on the law, to ensure that a much-needed reappraisal would ultimately take place.

The administration and Congress had four years to review the law. Why didn't they establish a task force or blue ribbon panel to thoroughly vet the Patriot Act?

Instead, Republicans and Democrats in Washington, and the assorted "special interests" groups that help them stir partisan cauldrons, have turned the Patriot Act into a political football.

The Bush administration and Congress ought to set up a panel of experts to conduct a complete review of the Patriot Act. They should identify provisions that are an unnecessary intrusion on civil liberties and recommend ways to bolster those aspects that truly make the nation's anti-terrorism safeguards stronger.