A second source said the nephew had died and the third person, who was al-Uraybi's sister, was seriously wounded.

It was not immediately clear if the attack was linked to al- Uraybi's work at the Iraqi High Tribunal.

He was appointed chief judge only last week after the government sacked his predecessor for telling Saddam, the former president, he was "not a dictator".

Three defence lawyers working for Saddam and his co-accused have been killed over the past year, and international legal rights groups have questioned whether he can receive a fair trial in the country.

The first police source said the dead man was Kadhim Abdul Hussain, who was in his 40s, and said his son was Karrar.

"They were attacked in Ghazaliya [a largely Sunni neighbourhood] around 7pm yesterday," the source said.

Al-Uraybi has taken a firm line with the defendants in the month-old trial and has ejected Saddam from court in each of the three sessions over which he has presided.

Gunmen frequently attack the relatives of prominent figures because they receive considerably less protection than leading political figures and judges.

According to Woodward, insurgent attacks against coalition troops occur, on average, every 15 minutes, a shocking fact the administration has kept secret. "It's getting to the point now where there are eight-, nine-hundred attacks a week. That's more than 100 a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces," says Woodward.

The situation is getting much worse, says Woodward, despite what the White House and the Pentagon are saying in public. "The truth is that the assessment by intelligence experts is that next year, 2007, is going to get worse and, in public, you have the president and you have the Pentagon [saying], 'Oh, no, things are going to get better,'" he tells Wallace. "Now there's public, and then there's private. But what did they do with the private? They stamp it secret. No one is supposed to know," says Woodward.

"The insurgents know what they are doing. They know the level of violence and how effective they are. Who doesn't know? The American public," Woodward tells Wallace.

Woodward also reports that the president and vice president often meet with Henry Kissinger, who was President Richard Nixon's secretary of state, as an adviser. Says Woodward, "Now what's Kissinger's advice? In Iraq, he declared very simply, 'Victory is the only meaningful exit strategy.'" Woodward adds. "This is so fascinating. Kissinger's fighting the Vietnam War again because, in his view, the problem in Vietnam was we lost our will."

President Bush is absolutely certain that he has the U.S. and Iraq on the right course, says Woodward. So certain is the president on this matter, Woodward says, that when Mr. Bush had key Republicans to the White House to discuss Iraq, he told them, "I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me."

Woodward reported for two years and interviewed more than 200 people, including top officials in the Bush administration, to learn these and other revelations that he makes in his latest book, State of Denial, published by Simon & Schuster, part of the CBS Corp.

The reports attribute the rising costs in part to a higher pace of fighting in both countries, where insurgents and terrorists have increased their attacks on US and coalition troops and civilians.

Another major factor, however, is "the building of more extensive infrastructure to support troops and equipment in and around Iraq and Afghanistan," according to the report. Based on Defense Department data, the report suggests that the construction of so-called semi-permanent support bases has picked up in recent months, making it increasingly clear that the US military will have a presence in both countries for years to come.

The United States maintains it is not building permanent military bases in Iraq or Afghanistan, where the local population distrusts America's long-term intentions.

But for the first time, a major factor in the growth of war spending is the result of a dramatic rise in "investment costs," or spending needed to sustain a long-term deployment of American troops in the two countries, the report said. These include the additional purchases of protective equipment for troops, such as armored Humvees, radios, and night-vision equipment; new tanks and other equipment to replace battered gear from Army and Marine Corps units that have been deployed numerous times in recent years; and growing repair bills for damaged equipment, what the military calls "reset" costs.

At least one lawmaker, referring to reports of equipment shortages in the war zones and at US bases where troops are training for combat, says some of the spending is misplaced. "While we are spending billions in Iraq to build and maintain massive bases, we cannot [effectively] repair our abused equipment or replace it," US Representative Martin T. Meehan , a Lowell Democrat and member of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement.

The Pentagon, which had previously made public its own estimate of operating costs, has not released up-to-date war costs.

The Congressional Research Service report estimates that after Congress approves two pending bills, the total war costs since Sept. 11, 2001, will reach about $509 billion. Of that, $379 billion will cover the cost of operations in Iraq, $97 billion will be the price tag for Afghanistan operations, and $26 billion will have gone to beefed-up security at US military bases around the world.

Though the military's operational costs in Iraq and Afghanistan have gone up despite a level number of US troops, the report attributes a large portion of the increased spending to the military's ongoing preparations to sustain combat operations in the two countries for the foreseeable future.

For example, the report shows that under the category of "procurement," the funds designated for "resetting the force" -- replacing or repairing equipment damaged in combat and preparing for long-term fighting -- has jumped from $7.2 billion in 2004 to $20.9 billion in 2005, and $22.9 billion this year. Separately, the Army has told Congress that it estimates it will need at least $36 billion more for equipment, while the Marine Corps has reported it needs nearly $12 billion.

Another major war cost is for infrastructure -- bases, landing strips, repair shops -- for the forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. These "operations and maintenance" costs remained steady at about $40 billion per year in 2003, 2004, and 2005, but have spiked to more than $60 billion this year.

Those factors alone, however, are "not enough to explain" the spiraling increase in operating costs, according to the report.

"You would expect [operating costs] to level off if you have the same level of people," said the report's principal author, Amy Belasco, a national defense specialist at the Congressional Research Service. "You shouldn't have as much cost to fix buildings that were presumably repaired when you got there. It's a bit mysterious."

The Pentagon has not provided Congress with a detailed accounting of all the war funds, making it impossible to conduct a full, independent estimate of how much Americans are spending in Iraq and Afghanistan -- or to predict what future costs might be.

"In congressional hearings, the Department of Defense has typically provided estimates of the current or average monthly costs over a period of time for military operations, referred to as the 'burn rate,' " the report stated. "While this figure covers some of the costs of war, it excludes the cost of upgrading or replacing military equipment and improving or building facilities overseas, and it does not cover all funds appropriated."

"That's right," replied someone in the friendly audience of about 2,000 gathered at a luncheon fund-raiser for Gov. Bob Riley's re-election campaign.

"The party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run," Bush said to applause.

Republicans, he said, "see the stakes. We understand the nature of the enemy. We know that the enemy wants to attack us again. We will not wait to respond to the enemy. We're not going to wait for them to attack us in order to respond. We will fight them wherever they make a stand. We will settle for nothing less than victory."

The president's toughly worded speech, one of the harshest he's made this campaign season, was given with an eye toward the Nov. 7 elections, in which public concern over Iraq may help Democrats regain control in Congress.

Bush spent part of his remarks urging Riley's re-election on Nov. 7, but most of his 40-minute speech was a dogged defense of the 3½-year war in Iraq and criticism of Democrats who oppose the war or how it is being waged.

"Now's the time for the United States of America to lay the foundation of peace, to confront the challenge we have square on, to protect our country, to do our duty, so that generations will look back and say, 'Thank God this generation of Americans was willing to serve and serve strong,'" said Bush, who received at least nine standing ovations during his speech.

Riley, who introduced the president, reflected the war on terror theme when he said, "Ladies and gentleman, this is exactly the kind of man I would want to lead our country in a time of war."

People paid $250, $500 or $1,000 to attend the luncheon, which was expected to raise as much as $1 million for Riley's re-election campaign. Bush called Riley one of the nation's finest governors and credited him with creating an environment that spurred economic growth in Alabama, which now has a jobless rate of 3.5 percent.

"When you have people working, it makes sense to put the man in charge of setting the tone for the state back in office," Bush said.

He also said that he and Riley shared the same view that tax cuts help economic growth.

"You see, we believe that when you've got more of your own money in your pocket to save, spend or invest, the economy grows," Bush said. "He (Riley) told me that he's running on cutting taxes, another reason to put him back in office ... And I'm telling you, cutting taxes works."

Focus on terror:

But Bush's main focus was the war on terror and what he termed Democrats' "policy of withdrawal from Iraq." He referred to the House passage this week of a bill to set out rules governing the trials and interrogations of suspected terrorists. Bush said the bill would set up military commissions "to enable us to bring to justice the people that ordered the attacks on the United States of America. The Supreme Court said, 'You must work with the legislature to achieve these objectives,' and we're doing just that."

Bush noted the bill passed "over the objections of 160 House Democrats, including the entire Democrat leadership.

"We must give our professionals the tools necessary to protect the American people in this war on terror," he said, "and those in the House of Representatives were wrong to vote against this bill."

Democrats who opposed the bill said it was faulty and could lead to a Supreme Court decision overturning terrorist convictions.

Presidential visits sometimes help candidates win in election years. Though Riley has been leading his Democratic opponent, Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley, by wide margins in recent opinion polls, Rep. Mike Hill, R-Columbiana, said Bush's visit should give a shot of adrenaline to Riley supporters.

Bush "may not pick up that many more votes, but what he does is, he gives the voters out there that really ... respect him and love him a vitality they may not have," Hill said. "Right now everybody's so tired of the campaign ... I am sickened every time I turn on the TV and see a negative ad being run. This (Bush's visit) is sort of bringing a breath of fresh air."

Thirty-three of those arrested were charged with unlawful conduct inside the Hart Building, said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider of the Capitol Police.

Thirty-eight more demonstrators were arrested at separate protests near the Capitol, she said. Of those, 23 were charged with crossing a police line and 15 were charged with demonstrating without a permit.

All of those arrested were cooperative with police, Schneider said.

The National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance, which has organized dozens of anti-war protests around the country, coordinated Tuesday's effort, which included several religious and secular groups.

Among those arrested during the demonstrations were two Presbyterian ministers, a Catholic activist and a member of a Quaker group, said Jennifer Kuiper, spokeswoman for The Declaration of Peace, one of the groups participating in the protests.

Both groups apparently expected participants to be arrested. On a notice posted at The Declaration of Peace Web site, the protests are described as an "interfaith religious procession around the Capitol, followed by peace presence and nonviolent resistance, including risking arrest at the U.S. Senate."

The National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance Web site adds, "Those willing to engage in nonviolent acts of civil resistance against the war and occupation are encouraged to join us. We also enthusiastically call upon those who cannot risk arrest, but who are willing to support those who do."

Despite a rising tide of war opposition, the protesters said they represent no party or political movement.

Baptist minister Jamie Washam of Wisconsin, who led an interfaith service during the protests, said she is adamantly opposed to the war.

"My congregation wants peace," she said. "And I think it's an offense to God."

Tuesday's events in Washington were part of 375 protests and other activities being held around the country this week in opposition to the war, according to The Declaration of Peace.

There were hundreds of arrests in a protest organized by the National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance a year ago. On September 26, 2005, 371 people were arrested during the "Resist and Remember" protest in Washington, one of the organization's founders, Gordon Clark, wrote in an online article.

Of those, 104 were arrested at the White House for refusing to leave after being denied an audience with President Bush, Clark wrote.