• Still live in a pre-9/11 world.
• Will appease terrorists.
• Cannot lead during dangerous times.

Republicans and Democrats do have quite different records when it comes to keeping America safe. It's time to review the facts.

The Republican image of strength on national security is actually an illusion based on tough talk, cover-up of serious mistakes and wizardry of their campaign strategists. As will be seen, the current Republican administration has seriously weakened our security in a number of different ways.

Democrats have a long-term record of keeping America secure. Their proven record far exceeds anything the Republicans have ever done.

On terrorism, the comparison is even more striking. The Clinton White House gave it top priority; the Bush White House did not. The Clinton White House responded to expert advice; the Bush White House did not. The Clinton White House acted on warnings; the Bush White House did not. There were repeated warnings of the 9/11 attacks -- some even specifying the method of attack. The Bush White House did not try to stop them.

The 9/11 Commission was less than forthright about President Bush's responsibility for the disaster. The Commission was politically divided and did not want to influence the presidential election campaign. This article will set the record straight.

Presidential Performance on National Security

Democratic presidents have mounted strong responses to a variety of major security threats. Wilson entered World War I when Europe was losing the war against Germany; Roosevelt took up the gauntlet against Nazi Germany during World War II; the Truman Doctrine led to the containment of the Soviet Union and stopped communist aggression in South Korea; and Kennedy confronted the Soviet Union to remove nuclear missiles from Cuba. Truman also established the Marshall Plan to restore Europe and created NATO to protect Europe and America.

World War II illustrates the dangers if presidents lack vision on national security. In the lead up to that war, many powerful Republicans were isolationists and opposed entering the war. After all, we had large oceans on each side to protect us. At that time, Germany had a decided edge in rocketry and missile technology and was pursuing a nuclear program. They had control of much of Europe and were attacking England and Russia. Without U.S. involvement, Germany would have been victorious and, as a minimum, owned all of Europe.

Following the war, the U.S. and Soviet Union actively recruited Germany's great scientists. For example, Von Braun's rocket technology was used to send our astronauts to the moon. Had we not entered the war, Germany would have been the world's first superpower. The Pacific and Atlantic oceans would have kept us safe -- but not for long.

In more recent times, Clinton ended the genocide in Bosnia using diplomacy and led an international military force to stop the genocide in Kosovo. Both actions were accomplished without loss of American life. Vietnam, under Johnson, was the one major exception - an acknowledged Democratic failure.

Over the past century, Republican presidents have managed only one war successfully, and that war involved a weak opponent. During the first Gulf War, Bush 41 led a massive coalition against the small country of Iraq which had no real air or sea power. More recently, Bush 43 has been mired down in a war, again with a weak opponent and again with Iraq.

Reagan was the only Republican president who made a major contribution to our national security. He put enough pressure on the Soviet Union to end the cold war. However, that war spanned four decades with presidents from both parties deeply involved. The winning strategy of nuclear deterrence and containment originated with the Truman Doctrine.

Perhaps of more importance to the reader are the recent performances of our last two presidents, Clinton and Bush, on international terrorism. The information that follows is based on literally hundreds of sources but some of the key ones are:

• A joint Senate/House inquiry into 9/11.
• The 9/11 Commission Report.
• Six books: The Terror Timeline, Against All Enemies, Misuse of Power, Looming Tower -- Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, State of Denial, and Without Precedent -- The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission.
• Time Magazine's disclosure of the secret history behind 9/11.
• Two films: The ABC docudrama, "Path to 9/11" and "9/11: Press for Truth."

Clinton elevates terrorism to national priority

Clinton was the first president to coordinate counter-terrorism directly from the White House and the first president to have the chief coordinator report directly to him. The al-Qaeda threat escalated when, in 1998, Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States and bombed two U.S. embassies. In response, President Clinton increased anti-terrorism budgets, launched cruise missiles at al-Qaeda training camps and tried to capture or kill bin Laden and his lieutenants. He also took the rare step of authorizing the CIA to assassinate bin Laden.

Several additional efforts to take out bin Laden were aborted. The CIA Director either pulled the plug, or Clinton's national security team rejected the plans on the grounds they were unworkable or based on dubious intelligence. In one case, bin Laden had already left the scene. Clinton insisted that he personally receive a pipeline of daily reports on al-Qaeda activities. His staff considered him obsessive on the subject.

During 1999, Clinton exercised widespread precautions to prevent terrorist attacks at the turn of the century and made the public fully aware of that danger. The CIA and FBI worked frantically to uncover millennium plots. Several were disrupted, no attacks occurred and one in progress (at Los Angeles airport) was prevented.

Just before the 2000 presidential election, terrorists struck again -- this time the target was the USS Cole. The strike prompted the Clinton administration to prepare a bold plan of attack against al-Qaeda. But, action was deferred because the attack was still under FBI investigation and responsibility had not yet been determined.

During transition, Clinton personally warned the incoming President Bush that bin Laden and al-Qaeda would be his gravest and greatest threat. Clinton's bold plan of attack was passed on to the new administration in special briefings to Vice-President Cheney and National Security Advisor Rice. According to an unnamed senior Bush official, this plan contained all the steps taken in Afghanistan after 9/11.

The ABC right-wing docudrama, "Path to 9/11," rewrote and falsified facts leading up to the disaster. Clinton and others in his administration publicly challenged the docudrama in advance of public screening. The White House chief of counter-terrorism for both Clinton and Bush released a statement to the press saying:

There is throughout the screenplay a consistent bias and distortion seeking to portray senior Clinton officials as holding back the hard charging CIA, FBI and military officers who would otherwise have prevented 9/11. The exact opposite is true. From the President, to all of his White House team ... there was a common fixation with terrorism, al-Qaeda, and bin Laden. The President approved every counter-terrorism operation presented to him ... increased counter-terrorism spending by 400% ... repeatedly authorized the use of lethal force against bin Laden and his deputies and personally requested the U.S. military to develop plans for ‘Commando operations' against them.

Commissioner Bob Kerrey expressed disappointment that his Chairman, Tom Kean, had associated the Commission with the ABC film. Some of the more blatant errors spotted during advance screenings were partially corrected. These errors, while serious, were not the major problem. What made the film unacceptable were the omissions below.

Bush Downgrades Terrorism

When the Bush administration first took office, al-Qaeda was already a major threat to our nation. One of their first actions was to downgrade the chief of counter-terrorism -- he no longer reported to the President. The bold plan passed on by the Clinton administration to attack al-Qaeda became the victim (until September) of "not invented here" and time spent on pet policies of top Bush officials (such as missile defense -- see p.14). When Congress tried to shift $600 million from this missile program to counter-terrorism, the administration threatened a presidential veto.

Reinforcing Clinton's earlier warnings to President Bush were two top level bipartisan commissions, one on terrorism and the other on national security. The two commissions reported that a major terrorist attack was inevitable and urged our defense be bolstered.

One of the commissions called for a new Department of Homeland Security, an idea which Bush rejected. Congress showed interest in the panel's recommendations, but the White House discouraged action, saying the matter would be turned over to the Vice President. The Vice President created a project to look at state-sponsored terrorism; however, al-Qaeda is a network, not state-sponsored. By 9/11, the project had gotten nowhere. Paul Bremer, in a speech in February 2001, concluded that the Bush Administration was "Paying no attention to the problem of terrorism. ... what they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident and then suddenly say, ‘Oh my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this?' ... They've been given a window of opportunity ... and they're not taking advantage of it."

Meanwhile, President Bush did not respond to the USS Cole attack, although he had campaigned that he would.

During the spring and summer 2001, a steady drumbeat of frantic warnings of an impending al-Qaeda attack surfaced from many different sources from around the world. The CIA Director repeatedly warned the White House and said, "Most of the al-Qaeda network is anticipating an attack." Some of these warnings actually specified the exact means of attack.

• March - Italy warned of a very, very secret al-Qaeda plan.
• April - Afghanistan warned of suicide aircraft missions and bin Laden's interest in (1) commercial pilots and (2) an attack on the World Trade Center.
• May - the Department of Defense learned that key al-Qaeda operatives were leaving Afghanistan to go to the U.S., Canada and Great Britain -- while others prepared for martyrdom.
• May/June - the National Security Agency picked up 33 communications about imminent terrorist attacks.
• June - Germany warned of terrorist plans to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as missiles against the U.S.
• June/July - the threats surged even higher and the CIA briefed both Bush and Cheney. When they had reached a record high, Secretary Powell referred to them as an impending Hiroshima on U.S. soil.
• July - Egypt warned that 20 al-Qaeda members had slipped into the U.S. -- 4 of them were training to fly.
• July - the Afghanistan Foreign Minister warned of a huge attack on America. He said many in Afghanistan were aware of the forthcoming attack.
• July/August - England warned us several times of multiple airplane hijackings and that al-Qaeda was in the final stages of preparing an attack.
• August - Russia (Putin) instructed his intelligence people to warn Bush "in the strongest possible terms" that 25 pilots were in training for suicide missions on U.S. targets.
• Late summer - Jordan warned twice that aircraft would be used in a major attack inside the U.S. This warning was deemed so important that one message came from the King's men and the second was sent through Germany. After 9/11, the administration arranged to have Jordan retract the warnings. According to The Christian Science Monitor the warnings were authentic.

Another warning reported that multiple attacks would be "on a calamitous level, causing the world to be in turmoil." In June and again in July the CIA Director told the White House to expect a major attack that "will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties ... attack preparations have been made, will occur with little or no warning ... this is going to be a big one." The CIA Director said the "warnings could not get any worse." On June 30 he sent to the White House a top secret intelligence brief, headlined, "Bin Laden Threats Are Real."

By July 10, the CIA Director and his counter-terrorism chief had developed a compelling case that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States. They took the unusual step of entering the White House without an appointment in order to brief National Security Advisor Rice. They believed that the time to act was now - covert or military - to thwart bin Laden. No immediate action meant great risk. The CIA Director told Bob Woodard that "he had sounded the loudest warning he could. But, it hadn't been heeded."

During the pre-9/11 time period the President received 40 separate CIA briefings commenting on the al-Qaeda threat. One of the last ones took place in August 2001 at Crawford, Texas with a headline "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." The briefing referred to al-Qaeda preparations for aircraft hijackings. Afterwards, the President dismissed the briefer and reportedly went fishing. Bin Laden had already declared war on the United States and demonstrated his intentions with previous attacks. There was no reason not to take him seriously.

In frustration over inaction, two senior government officials seriously considered resigning in order to go public. The FBI head of New York City's national security did resign and took the job of security chief at the World Trade Center. He did not survive the attack.

At no time during this period did the President take control, call agency heads together, go into crisis mode or warn the public. He did not do the obvious thing -- call a cabinet meeting to hunt down terrorist cells, fix airline vulnerabilities and prepare for suicide hijackings. Time Magazine concluded that "2001 saw a systematic collapse in the ability of Washington's national security apparatus to handle the terrorist threat."

The attitudes and priorities of key people reporting to the President support Time Magazine's conclusion. By 9/11, Rumsfeld still had not filled his key position on counter-terrorism, did not have a mission to counter al-Qaeda and acknowledged to the 9/11 Commission that he was focused on other issues. In a meeting with other agencies his Deputy said: "I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man, bin Laden" -- "who cares about a little terrorist in Afghanistan"? The Joint Chiefs informed the 9/11 Commission that the Administration "did not show much interest in military options."

According to the FBI, the Attorney General seemed "disinterested" and denied their request for $40 million in terrorism funding. (Despite this attitude, the Attorney General began flying expensive charters rather than commercial aircraft.) On the same day of the attack, National Security Advisor Rice was supposed to give a speech on the threats of tomorrow. That speech promoted missile defense and omitted any reference to numerous warnings of an al-Qaeda attack.

The attitudes and priorities of Bush's chief advisors can only reflect those of the President himself. As demonstrated at the turn of the century, presidential leadership stimulated public interest as well as a new level of energy, creativity and cooperation among federal agencies to head off an attack. Alerting the nation to the likelihood of a terror attack would have surfaced information in the bowels of operating agencies and permitted the public to assist in averting or disrupting the attack.

Normally, any Commander-in-Chief, with America's security as his top priority, would have worked closely with the 9/11 Commission to prevent similar attacks in the future. Bush did not. After 9/11, he evaded all responsibility and, for a year, strongly opposed an investigative commission. The 9/11 families and members of Congress persisted until the Commission finally came to pass. Afterwards, the White House stonewalled the Commission for another year. As the Commissioners themselves have acknowledged, they suffered from lengthy delays, maddening restrictions and disputes over access to sensitive documents and witnesses.

Why Didn't the 9/11 Commission Hold Bush to Account?

In October 2006, a CBS/New York Times survey found that more than half of the respondents think the Bush administration is hiding something and almost one-third believe it is lying. Remarkably, much (but not all) of the information needed to document this can be found in the Commission report.

It is contained in three sections: "The New Administration's Approach" (p. 203), "The System Was Blinking Red" (p. 254) and in separate parts on the administration's policy and management (pp. 348, 353). However, these sections are separated by many pages of voluminous detail, which divert the reader's attention. To begin to connect the dots, a reader must focus on these three sections sequentially.

The Commission did point out that federal agencies never mobilized a response, got direction or had a plan, and the public was not warned.

The Commission just didn't explain why.

The Commission searched for ways that 9/11 could have been prevented by dwelling on individual failures in the bureaucracy, but reached no finite conclusions. It omitted the many dire warnings from foreign countries about aircraft suicide missions. The Commission report also omitted a crucial July 10 meeting between the CIA and National Security Advisor Rice requesting the White House to take immediate action to thwart bin Laden.

The presidential election was fast approaching and Commission members were evenly split, half Republicans and half Democrats, with a Republican chairman. They all knew, of course, that any assessment of White House responsibility would affect a close election. Some Commissioners did explore White House neglect in public hearings, but Republican members immediately rushed to the President's defense - aided by the White House. As the presidential election drew closer, emotions ran high among Republican leaders in government. Some, like Tom DeLay, began to criticize the Commission.

To succeed, the Commission felt they had to have: (1) a cooperative White House that would permit access to highly sensitive information, (2) a good working relationship among their own members and (3) a consensus on the report across party lines. The Commission knew that a divided report would gather dust and cost them their recommendations for a more secure America. They elected to report no conclusions on presidential responsibility and issue a unified report that would gain acceptance.

More than one analyst has questioned omission of a White House role in the catastrophe. For instance, The New York Review of Books said:

In an effort to achieve a unanimous, bipartisan report, the Commission decided not to assign individual blame and avoided overt criticism of the President himself. Still, the report is a powerful indictment of the Bush Administration for its behavior before and after the attack of September 11.

On September 25, 2006, Commissioner Ben-Veniste acknowledged on CNN that, in order to reach agreement on the report, they had to limit their reporting to the facts and leave conclusions to the reader. Bob Kerrey also acknowledged limitations on the Commission's work and went much further:

Now it's beyond the (presidential) campaign, so the promise I had to keep this out of the campaign is over. Mr. President, you knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat. Didn't do anything to harden our border security. Didn't do anything to harden airport security. Didn't do anything to engage local law enforcement. Didn't do anything to round up INS and the consular office, and say we have to shut this down, and didn't warn the American people. What did you do? Nothing so far as we can see.

The fundamental problem with the Commission report is the omission of any comparison of President Bush's response with what any reasonable and prudent president would do under similar circumstances. The Commission did not define the measures that would depict a government in action, anxious to protect its people and determined to make it difficult for the terrorist attacks to succeed.

The Commission had a sworn duty under its charter to disclose the underlying causes of our nation's vulnerability. A principal cause was neglect at the presidential level. By not trying to stop the attacks, the President failed in his duty as Commander-in-Chief. ("Misuse of Power," pp. 78-86.) The Commission's Chair and Vice-Chair received copies of this article and declined to comment.

Ironically, the President's neglect helped to create a national crisis which, in the aftermath, he has exploited politically to get a second term, to gain unchecked executive power, to take control of Congress and to sell a war in Iraq.

According to Thomas Ricks, the Washington Post's Pentagon expert and author of Fiasco, President Bush was anxious to go to war in Iraq because he had been "caught with his pants down on 9/11." Ricks went on to tell NBC's Tim Russert that, although the CIA was blamed for 9/11, the White House had been warned numerous times and simply didn't respond.

Iraqi War Avoidable Despite Bad Intelligence

There is no need to review all the Republican administration mistakes made in initiating or prosecuting the war in Iraq. They are well documented. The fact is the previous Democratic administration had kept Saddam in line and his military forces had decayed and shrunk. Successfully contained, he was not a threat to the United States. The war could have been easily avoided.

The President began Iraqi war planning sessions with General Franks in December 2001 -- 15 months before the invasion. Within a few months, the President sent his CIA Director and a permanent group of CIA personnel to northern Iraq to lay the groundwork for war. Extensive military preparations followed. The result was a policy-based decision that drove the intelligence, rather than the other way around. The President's independent commission on intelligence found that:

Intense policymaker interest contributed to the willingness of CIA people to accept dubious intelligence claims and an unwillingness to reject them.

This climate shifted the CIA burden of proof from showing that illegal weapons existed to proving they did not exist.

Administration support of false information from Iraqi exiles made CIA's job even more difficult.

Before President Bush's order to invade, international inspectors had made 700 inspections on the ground in Iraq and found nothing -- including no evidence of a nuclear program or biological weapons. They conveyed this information to the UN publicly in an interim report on March7, 2003. Soon afterwards, Bush invaded and forced the inspectors to leave.

Bush did not go to war as a last resort -- as he said he would. The result has been (1) the death and injury of over one million Americans and Iraqis, (2) the displacement of a similar number of Iraqis who fled their homes, (3) the destruction of much of Iraq and (4) the waste of enormous resources in the hundreds of billions of dollars. It will take decades to recover and restore faith and trust once again in the United States.

Mismanagement of Other Security Issues Puts Our Future at Risk

Diversion of our military forces from terrorism to a mistaken war in Iraq has incited more terror and deflected attention from security issues that endanger our nation's future.

Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Nuclear proliferation is the preeminent national security issue of our time and is governed by international treaty. In mid-2005, the UN held a worldwide conference to close gaping holes in this treaty. Neither the President nor his National Security Advisor found time to attend, and the conference failed. Since then, a dozen countries have looked into this issue and, in June 2006, reported to the UN that:

• There has been a serious and dangerous loss of momentum and nuclear states no longer take their commitment to disarmament seriously.
• There are 27,000 nuclear weapons in the world. That number will rise because of efforts to develop more sophisticated new weapons and place them in space.
• They should all be banned as unlawful, as in the case of biological and chemical weapons, and their use made unthinkable.
• A new missile shield (see below) by the U.S. will lead to countermeasures by Russia and China.
• The U.S. has not ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and its unwillingness to cooperate in international arms agreements is undermining efforts to curb nuclear weapons.

If the U.S. takes the lead, the world will follow; if not, there will be more nuclear tests and new nuclear arms races.

Unsecured (loose) nuclear weapons are considered the greatest danger to America. President John F. Kennedy said:

Think ... what it would be like to have nuclear weapons in so many hands ... countries large and small, stable and unstable, responsible and irresponsible ... There would be no rest for anyone, no stability, no real security, and no chance for disarmament.

Other Threats Escalate. North Korea and Iran have advanced their nuclear capabilities while we have lost time and squandered resources in Iraq. North Korea decided to reactivate a nuclear plant closed eight years earlier, kick out UN inspectors and withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. (James Fallows, Atlantic Monthly) Iran is now developing a nuclear program and has fired its first bomb.

Instead of using face-to-face diplomacy, the Bush administration has for many years refused to talk to leaders of North Korea and Iran. Now, we are handcuffed by Iraq and unable to play a meaningful role in world affairs. The war has depleted and trapped our military, and there are no good options for dealing with the growing threat posed by either country.

Weapons In Space - Starting Another Arms Race. The Bush administration has withdrawn from the treaty which banned space weapons. It is attempting to develop weapons superiority in space at enormous cost to the taxpayer. However, other countries will not abandon space to the U.S., and an arms race and another cold war could ensue. This has huge implications for life here on earth and our deficit-ridden budgets.

Star Wars In Trouble -- May Be Unworkable. Shortly after the President took office, he also withdrew from the 30-year Antiballistic Missile Treaty and restarted a hugely expensive "Star Wars" program. It put terrorism on the back burner as our nation's top priority. The system's "kill vehicles" are intended to fly into space and destroy enemy warheads. This missile shield was supposed to be deployed by 2004. A more limited version is still being developed and has been subject to carefully scripted tests. This limited version cannot cope with Russia's sizeable nuclear arsenal (and one day China's) and its "kill vehicle" can be confused by clouds of decoys.

Government studies and outside experts say the limited version "remains a patchy and unproven shield." Hurried development has led to incomplete testing and technical glitches. The ship borne radar, on which the missile system depends, cannot handle rugged seas. And, this ship is the first thing an enemy would take out if it really wanted to attack the U.S. As yet, there's been no real world testing of the missile.

Stars Wars is not a well thought out program or a good use of taxpayer dollars. The missile shield may never succeed under realistic conditions. A better solution, as President Kennedy urged, is to aggressively pursue nuclear disarmament and outlaw nuclear weapons that imperil life here on earth. This would eliminate the need for expensive "Star Wars" kinds of programs on the part of any superpower, present and future.

Coastal And Border Defense Neglected. It's been five years since 9/11 and we still do not have a coastal defense against low-flying missiles or rockets fired by terrorists from ships offshore. Also, there is concern about the vulnerability of our chemical plants and the lack of border security. Investigators from the U.S. Government Accountability Office recently used fake documents to smuggle into this country enough radioactive material to make two dirty bombs. In addition, 18 undercover GAO agents crossed over into seven border states using fake documents.

No Real Policy To Deter And Win The War On Terrorism. The President has no comprehensive policy to curb global terrorism and eradicate its root causes. His policies have instead helped bin Laden and others recruit terrorists all over the world. After stalling for several months, the administration finally released a report showing a massive increase in world-wide terrorism for 2004 -- it had tripled over the previous year. Even greater increases were reported for 2005. According to 100 leading American foreign policy analysts, we are failing to make progress in the global war on terror and the world has grown more, not less dangerous (Foreign Affairs, 2006).

The President's idea that the U.S. can deal with each and every country that supports or harbors terrorism is just tough talk and impossible to achieve. Deterring terrorism is a shared responsibility that requires leadership and cooperation from all heads of state. All nations must remove terrorist activities from their country and help others do the same. Any nation failing to cooperate should be subject to tough sanctions and military action. It's time to get serious? (Misuse of Power, pp.123-26.)

External Influences Diminish Our National Security. There are external influences that seriously undermine our nation's security, which have been mismanaged by the current Republican administration. Four will be highlighted: (1) a unilateral and bullying foreign policy that has made diplomatic solutions difficult, if not impossible, (2) continued dependence on oil to fuel our economy, (3) exploding deficit budgets that will create massive problems for future presidents to keep us safe and (4) threats to our environment that could eventually wipe out much of life here on earth.

The Foreign Policy Threat. Worldwide anger and discontent over the Bush administration's foreign policy has played into the hands of terrorists - making it easier for them to recruit people and target Americans and those who support them. Bush's arrogant "my way or the highway approach" has damaged our credibility and esteem and nearly paralyzed our diplomacy. We are no longer respected as a world leader. A recent PEW survey found that most people in the international community believe that Bush's foreign policy is more dangerous than Iran's nuclear program.

The Fiscal Threat. Our long-term fiscal health is being jeopardized by monster deficits, a staggering debt, and yearly interest on the debt in the hundreds of billions of dollars. This is money that won't be available to spend on essential needs. Almost half of our debt is owned by foreign countries (like China and Japan). Interest rates on our debt are rising and much of the income flows abroad, not here. This fiscal mismanagement will limit expenditures for our future security and the flexibility of our future presidents.

The Energy Threat. Our foreign policy has long been enslaved by a dependence on Mid-East oil and very little is being done to break that stranglehold. This dependency makes us vulnerable to oil rich nations and limits our influence around the world. A Manhattan-style project is long overdue to create alternative sources of energy, achieve fuel economy and help save the planet from carbon gas emissions. Our government needs to educate the consumer public, provide incentives to alter industry behavior and tax the kind of energy that endangers our future.

The Environmental Threat. Much of the natural machinery that sustains life here on earth is being degraded. According to noted scientists, the worldwide turmoil expected from climate change is even more threatening than terrorism. The National Academy of Science and the National Center for Atmospheric Research have confirmed that recent warming of the earth is unprecedented. There will be floods, droughts and rising sea levels from melting polar ice caps. The problem is that when irreversible damage begins, it will ruin life on earth for future generations.

Very little is being done by the current Republican administration to combat this threat. As a result, ten states and two major cities are suing the U.S. government to establish tougher gas mileage rules and place limits on gases linked to global climate change. These gases block the escape of heat from earth by acting as an insulating blanket. A weather expert contends that global warning is the ultimate weapon of mass destruction and "will kill more people than have died in all human conflict."

Concluding Remarks

As the book, The Terror Timeline, points out, "The public record reflects that the extreme focus on terrorism in place at the end of the Clinton administration dropped dramatically under the Bush administration. With few exceptions, little attention was paid to terrorism, even as the number of warnings reached unprecedented levels." The 9/11 tragedy might have been averted if the President had maintained the priority of the previous administration, retaliated against the U.S.S. Cole attack, and responded seriously to the many extraordinary warnings.

President Bush has not followed the practice of building on the work of prior administrations and taking responsibility for his own actions. Instead, he has allowed the brunt of 9/11 responsibility to fall on operating agencies, the CIA and the previous administration. Unless the official record is corrected, we will lose an important lesson in national leadership. Had the 9/11 Commission held Bush and his national security team to account, we would have a different president in office today, a different course in Iraq and a different Katrina response.

The current Republican administration has given new life to terrorism, adopted a failing strategy to combat it, caused an unprecedented decline in America's position in the world, weakened our military posture, and put our future security at risk. All military services now face readiness problems and shortages of elite special operations forces necessary to fight terrorism. The administration continues to give a mistaken war priority over defending Americans against terrorism.

Addendum for Future Wars

There is a way to stop future presidents from rushing to war and make sure an intimidated Congress never again gives a blank check. Any future war should be accompanied by increased tax revenues to pay for it and a temporary reinstitution of the draft to provide the necessary manpower. This would create a real debate on need for the war. An all-volunteer army works well in peacetime, but not during war.