EDITORIAL - As the 9-11 Commission drags on, certain of its partisan Democrat members continue to let America's safety and security take a "back seat" to their political agenda. Thus, by their own antics, they provide evidence of the true nature of government dysfunction that prevailed throughout the 1990's, when their party dominated a national policy that left gaping holes in America's ability to forestall such an attack.

While these accusations may seem overly harsh, it has become nearly impossible to conclude that the commission is really about assessing America 's true vulnerabilities to past and future terrorist threats. Instead, it is mired by its liberal members to the point that its end product will likely be little more than a partisan political statement.

Consider this month's sterling testimony by National Security Director Condoleezza Rice. Two commission members in particular, former Senator Bob Kerry (D-NE) and Richard Ben-Viniste of Watergate prosecution fame, clearly were far more focused on voicing derogatory statements about Dr. Rice (and preventing her from responding), than they were about gaining new insights into national security, which she might have to offer.

Ben-Viniste sidestepped any serious analysis of the situation in order to play a petty game of "gotcha" regarding an August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB), ostensibly containing specific warnings of an upcoming al Qaeda attack. Ben-Viniste's clear implication was that the Bush Administration had been sufficiently forewarned, but did nothing in response. Upon its being made public, the memo stated little more than that al Qaeda remained a major threat to the United States.

Judging from Ben-Viniste's earlier statements, one might be given to think the memo contained specific information that could have prevented the hijackings. However, all of the commotion turned out to be nothing more than a smokescreen, concocted solely for the cameras, and intended to discredit Dr. Rice, and the administration to which she belongs. While possibly garnering "political capital" for unscrupulous presidential aspirants, such behavior does nothing to enhance the security of the country, and may instead seriously undermine it.

Of course, nobody is asserting that liberal commission members are working in concert with John Kerry, in an effort to further his quest for the White House at the expense of the American people. Yet who can deny the existence of a symbiotic malignancy that is emerging between America-hating Islamists and this country's liberal establishment? A perceived failure by President Bush to successfully recognize and confront terrorism will increase chances of his being replaced by a much weaker and morally ambiguous president in the person of John Kerry. And a nation thus weakened by so drastic a change will greatly improve the fortunes of terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and al Qaeda.

It is noteworthy that, during his April 13 press conference, President Bush was repeatedly pressured by reporters to apologize for September 11. Refusing to yield to the ruse, he properly did not do so. Throughout the Clinton years, the former president was constantly apologizing. When visiting Africa he apologized for slavery. And he apologized for the burning of black churches in Arkansas when he was a child, though no such church burnings ever took place in Arkansas during that time.

Of course it was another matter entirely when Clinton's own indiscretions came to light. While he, like all liberals, finds it extremely easy to apologize for the transgressions of others, no apologies were ever offered for the manner in which he disgraced himself, his office, and the entire country. All of that was merely a sinister scheme by the "vast right wing conspiracy."

Richard Clark's well timed "apology" stands as an entirely similar example. While the media trumpeted it as giving some sort of comfort to the families of 9-11 victims, this was not its real purpose. Despite phony professions of contrition, apologies from liberals are never intended to show remorse for their own actions. Rather, they are calculated to highlight the necessity for remorse by their political or ideological opposition.

While no corroborating link is being insinuated between the 9-11 commission and the recent upsurge of terrorist activity in Iraq, it is inarguable that the militant Islamists fomenting the activity are greatly buoyed and inspired by the fierce and duplicitous attacks against the Bush Administration from partisan commission members, Democrat political operatives, and of course, in the media. Certainly, more Americans are dying as a result. But don't expect Richard Clarke or his liberal allies to apologize any time soon.