The 9/11 commission is in danger of losing all semblance of credibility as a non-partisan effort. Richard Ben-Veniste, Jamie S. Gorelick, Bob Kerrey, and Timothy J. Roemer all seem to have decided--and unashamedly state on TV and in print--that 9/11 could have been prevented, and should have been prevented--by the Bush Administration. To their credit, the chair and co-chair of the commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, seem to always appear together and have been generally fair in their assessments based on the information they've gathered and analyzed so far.

Ben-Veniste makes much of the title of the now infamous August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing document that the White House declassified and released yesterday. He and the other four Democrats on the commission are trying to connect dots using hindsight based on what we know now, not on what the President and the NSC knew then. Apparently, the President was frustrated by the quality of the information he was getting on Al-Qaeda after the briefing.

Kerrey, who may or may not be campaigning to become Kerry's Vice President, is as bad as Ben-Veniste, although he doesn't have the crocodillian smile that Ben-Veniste has developed over the years. Kerry tries in his op-ed piece in the New York Times today to retract some of his more over the top comments for last Thursday's televised grilling of Dr. Rice.

Jamie Gorelick was a member of Janet Reno's Department of Justice. She apparently was a member of the team that imposed tight restrictions on sharing of information between the FBI and CIA. She was the first to see the PDB in full, and her notes on the document equipped the other commissioners to ask questions about it of Dr. Rice. She was as critical of Dr. Rice as any other member, especially when she tried to extrapolate warnings of possible hijackings in the U. S. to indicate that the plans could have been more sinister than just holding the passengers hostage, as most aircraft hijackings had played out in our past. There was no information in the PDB that could have been used to warn airlines--then in charge of airport security--that hijackers would behave in any way other than those who typically have demanded ransom, demanded freedom for prisoners, or simply used the plane to transport the hijackers to a foreign country.

Some of the structural failings that allowed Al-Qaeda to easily enter the US, to remain in the country after the expiration of their visas, to obtain funds, to contact foreign confederates in person or through electronic means, and to board aircraft carrying simple weapons and cannisters of pepper spray, have been addressed. Whether those measures are working well or not, no successful attack has been launched in the US since 9/11. It is arguable that further steps, including the creation of a separate agency apart from the FBI that is focused on domestic intelligence, should be taken, and soon.

No one can credibly make the case that either the Clinton or Bush Administrations could have sold Congress, the media, the punditry, and the public on the Patriot Act, the creation of the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security, the possible FBI reform, and other steps we've taken since 9/11 to protect the country before 9/11 ocurred. President Bush could not have invaded Afghanistan in the way we did after 9/11 before the attacks--the nation would not have allowed it. As it is, the Patriot Act is criticized today, protesters blame us for civilian deaths in Afghanistan, and all sorts of regular people hate the TSA for everything from long, slow lines to taking nail clippers from old ladies.

Perfect safety is impossible. Tornadoes are not subject to regulation. Radical Islamist terrorists dream of a world in flames, then expect the remnants of that world to be ruled by mullahs who debate the merits of throwing offenders from the roofs of tall buildings or pulling walls down on them as just punishment for their sins. They reject vaccines and treatments for HIV, claiming in their ignorance that the medicines are worse than the diseases they treat, and place their faith in God to save the sick. They allow men to divorce their wives, leaving them without income or property, simply by saying "I divorce you!" aloud three times. They harshly punish the victims of rape, rather than the rapists. They are descendants from a long line of slave traders who continue to sell women and children into bondage to this day. They teach little else other than hatred for others, using demagoguery to deflect complaints from their people for the failings of their societies. They claim to be willing to die for their promised afterlife with 72 virgins. They claim that this life is a way-station to paradise, that children should be willing to die, leaving their loved ones behind in the name of a jihad they cannot understand, while secretly enriching the mullocracy.

Fate has dealt the world a cruel blow, granting a precious commodity that fuels the commerce of the world to a people who use their wealth for weapons they use irresponsibly, for the destruction of peoples in their region and without, to foster hatred for civilization and revenge for offenses almost completely unknown to anyone other than to themselves, and to doom generations of a populace kept in economic squalor and in a criminal state of ignorance.

Radical Islam has not had its internal upheaval and reformation, like the long efforts that ended sad periods in history like the Spanish Inquisition. External critics are threatened with death if not killed outright; some have been lucky enough only to have been exiled. If these radicals are to survive their war with civilization, cooler heads in the Muslim world must speak out now and act fast, lest they be tarred with the same brush that will consign these perverted Islamists to history. As for the 9/11 commission, I hope that the report will be more bipartisan than the previews given by the four partisan Democrats, and that constructive reform--of the Executive Branch as well as of Congressional oversight--will be the result.