For instance, last week, it was reported that President Bush had agreed to "fully fund" port security programs. By fully fund, the reporter meant the president had agreed to the added Democratic spending of $58 million. But, when added to the president's spending proposal, that higher figure will only buy inspection of 2 percent to 5 percent of the containers entering the country. That is only the percentage of "high-risk" containers. But even established shippers (who are not considered high risk) are highly vulnerable to penetration by terrorists. The Coast Guard has quietly suggested that at least 10 times the current spending level would be necessary. But that gets into real money, and it might force Congress and the president to decide whether we need port security more than we need, say, prescription drug subsidies. No such debate will happen.

Another example: The political system is not even publicly discussing how to prepare for adequate civil defense measures in the case of a major terrorist attack. I happened to sit on a panel discussing the topic at the National Defense College a few weeks ago at Ft. McNair. The experts pointed out that the same National Guard personnel who state and local law enforcement are relying on for back-up have a dual function -- being called up by the Pentagon to supplement the active military responsibilities. The Guardsman can't be at two places at one time. And, given how thinly stretched our active military is, we can be fairly sure many of the Guardsman will not be available when we need them. Unless you think September 11 was a one-time event (and no experts or senior government officials believe that), we ought to be planning for the inevitable. That might be a swell topic for the Democrats to champion -- but they are busy making rude slurs about the president.

The president and his advisors should not feel defensive about constructive criticism of the war on terrorism. As Winston Churchill told his people at the beginning of WWII, his government will make grievous errors and blunders that will cost many lives -- but they will fight on to victory. The American people don't expect this government -- or any government -- to get every strategy and tactic right. But they would be greatly heartened by a president who is constantly open to improving and modifying plans as events and new understanding dictate. A Democratic Party that made constructive suggestions on how to improve our future security (rather than pick over the bones of the past for cheap partisan advantage) would be a truly loyal opposition. And that would eventually pay off at the polls.