Not that the Bush administration has anything to hide, but in the public relations game it all depends on what the public believes. It won't matter one bit if Clarke is proven to be a liar as long as people think there is a shred of truth behind what he is saying. The future of our "war on terror" may indeed hinge on how Clarke's message is received by the voters.

The main focus of the 2004 campaign season will most likely be terrorism. If the Republicans can convince people that Bush is the one to continue leading the charge against the looming threat of terrorism, then the GOP may have the election sewn up. If, however, the Democrats succeed in planting the seed of doubt in the minds of American voters, Bush may as well start packing for the big move back to Texas in January. There will be hell to pay at the ballot box if there is even the slightest hint that the devastating attacks two-and-a-half years ago could have been prevented, and the Republican Party may end up suffering the same fate Spain's Popular Party suffered in March.

We should be in for quite a show over the next seven months. Charges will be raised and charges will be denied. Blame will be shifted as quickly as it can be placed. Look for an ominous shadow to descend across the Beltway as the sun is darkened by all of the flying accusations and rhetorical trial balloons.

Let us suppose for a moment that the Bush administration was asleep at the wheel on Sept. 11, 2001. Even if that were true, the Democrats would still have their share of questions to answer. Assuming Richard Clarke is correct in saying that Clinton did more than Bush to confront the threat of terrorism, why wasn't Clinton raked over the coals for failing to prevent the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center? After all, that attack came two months after the hotel bombing in Yemen that had targeted U.S. military personnel. Shouldn't the Clinton administration have been better prepared?

As it happened, not much was done after the incident in Yemen, and on Feb. 26, 1993, the World Trade Center was attacked. Had that bomb been a little more powerful, or if it had detonated in a more strategic spot, the death toll - given the time of day and the number of people present - could have easily been six thousand instead of only six.

But our preparedness cannot be measured in terms of casualties. Any lapse in security or intelligence must be identified and dealt with. Considering that we are involved in a protracted fight for our very survival, the Clinton administration should be scrutinized every bit as harshly as the Bush administration when it comes to terrorism.

Which brings me to the Republicans. While they are busy discrediting Clarke, they are overlooking some very important concerns that need to addressed. The debate right now seems to have dissolved into a "did not-did to" argument with both sides refusing to accept any responsibility.

The pressing issue Republicans must contend with - the issue Democrats will try to exploit - is whether or not the Bush White House really did everything within its power to deal with the threat of terrorist attacks. The Democrats will not back down, and their criticism cannot simply be brushed aside as an example of partisan politics. Questions remain.

For example, what did National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice mean when she said that no one anticipated "a hijacked plane as a missile"? One government intelligence agency had scheduled a drill for Sept. 11, 2001, in which a plane would crash into a federal building. Granted, the scenario did not involve terrorism, but given the fact that terrorists had been known to hijack planes and drive truck bombs into buildings, would it really have been a stretch to think that they might one day implement a strategy that combined the two tactics?

Like Clinton, Bush had the benefit of hindsight and had access to the same intelligence reports - some of which indicated that flying a hijacked plane into a building was a distinct possibility. So why wait a year-and-a half after 9/11 to start pushing for the arming of airline pilots? If terrorism was a priority for the Bush administration as many Republicans claim, wouldn't it have made sense to do it merely as a precaution?