With all the buzz about the testimony coming forth from the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, or the 9-11 Commission as it is more commonly referred to, one thing has become blatantly clear, the War on Terror was something long overdue.

After listening to the testimony of both the Clinton and George W. Bush Administrations it has become abundantly clear that the gathering threat President Bush has consistently referred to when he talks about Iraq in particular and terrorism in general has been gathering for well over a decade. Listening to people like Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, Richard Cohen, George Tenet, Donald Rumsfeld and Sandy Burger, one can only conclude that the United States intelligence community was aware of a gathering threat, a mounting danger, from terrorist networks around the globe and in particular, al Qaida and Osama bin Laden.

This being said, I am sure there will be many who ask why nothing was done to prevent the attacks of September 11th, especially in light of the terrorist attacks that preceded the second day of infamy to which our country has been subjected. Surely, anyone who had any semblance of common decency, any common sense whatsoever, would have taken action to prevent the loss of 3000 plus lives taken on that fateful day. To think that the man who sat in the Oval Office would know about this gathering threat, this danger to our citizenry, and not do anything to protect the well being of our people, well, it is unconscionable.

To the people who would ask this question while protesting the actions of the Bush Administration I have an answer: you have had it both ways and you are still not satisfied.

During the Clinton years the policy was to "rollback” or isolate the terrorist threat. This contention has come out in the testimony of Clinton Administration members before the 9-11 Commission. While then CIA Director George Tenet admits to having created a cell within the intelligence community that would concern itself specifically with the gathering threat of al Qaida and Osama bin Laden, the main crux of their focus was on containment. On the occasions the Sudan offered Osama bin Laden’s head on a platter to the United States, and this is disputed by some, embraced by others but recorded in history by Bill Clinton’s own words, President Clinton contended he could not accept Osama bin Laden because he had no legal standing to do so. Clinton is quoted as saying he pleaded with Saudi Arabia to take possession of bin Laden but to no avail.

After it was established that Osama bin Laden was at the helm of al Qaida and that al Qaida was responsible for attacks on the World Trade Center, the US Embassies in Africa and the USS Cole, even the philosophy of containment held by the Clinton Administration gave way to cruise missile attacks targeting bin Laden. History records that these attacks missed their mark, came too little too late for those who lost their lives in the already perpetrated terrorist attacks and left bin Laden alive to oversee the killing of 3000 plus people in the final attack on the original World Trade Center, but, to Bill Clinton’s credit, an attempt was made.

We are now told that when George W. Bush took office the consensus of his administration, after briefings from the transition teams had concluded, was that a policy of elimination be implemented along with a consistent policy of containment. This stands in stark contrast to the questionable assertion the Bush Administration was not focused on terrorism, al Qaida and bin Laden as depicted by Richard Clarke in his book, which many in the know are calling a work of fiction peppered with an enormous amount of ego. In fact, not only had this policy been adopted by the new administration it was crafted, ironically with the help and praise of Richard Clarke, and implemented not one day before September 11th, 2001.

All who testified agreed that military action in Afghanistan prior to September 11th, 2001 was not feasible and that the world community would have considered it an act of aggression. It wouldn’t have mattered that the justification for such an action would have been the dead from previous al Qaida attacks or that the information being received by our government and in particular our intelligence community stated there was a gathering threat of incredible consequence. The US had to abide by the will of the world community to maintain the delicate balance of diplomacy, the same diplomacy that led to the terrorist attacks of the World Trade Center, the US Embassies in Africa and the USS Cole in the first place.

Then came September 11th and all the rules were changed. Containment proved to be a horrible policy failure when dealing with terrorism. The philosophy of elimination became the embraced policy and rightly so. This policy was born of the blood of our citizens and those of other countries around the world who fell victim to acts of terror perpetrated against "Western interests,” "The Great Satan” and the United States, all one in the same. Any leader who would have believed otherwise would have not been looking out for the well being of our country or its citizens.

President Bush declared a war on terror and those who harbor terrorism within their borders. In the days that followed September 11th the support for this declaration was steadfast from both sides of the aisle in Washington DC. The president knew then that the War on Terror was an action that would not be surgical in its nature, it was going to be a long, tough slog through time that would not leave us unscarred. He saw beyond the immediate conflict in Afghanistan and included in the list of foes those who would perpetrate terror and harbor those who would use terrorism as a tool of political and ideological advancement toward returning to the Stone Age. His policy of terror elimination, the goal of the War on Terror, led him to Iraq and the elimination of a regime that employed terrorism daily against its own people, that eliminated with biological and chemical weapons ideological and religious foes who threatened them, that harbored the likes of Abu Nidal and that had recognized headquarter outposts for several terrorist organizations including Hamas, who today has declared the US a target for their terrorism.

George W. Bush embraced a policy of preemption and elimination; exactly what those critical of both the Clinton and Bush Administrations contend wasn’t in place to fend off the attacks of September 11th.

The American public is going to have to make up their minds as to whether we are going to place ourselves back into the crosshairs of terrorism or whether we are going to protect ourselves through the elimination of terrorism both diplomatically and forcefully, reactionary and preemptive. We cannot allow ourselves to be hypocritical at such a critical time.

It would seem that this choice would be made in November. I only pray to God that the people of this great nation make the correct decision, the decision to exist rather than burn away in the ball of fire that terrorism would afford us. To that extent, our lives hang in the balance.

Frank Salvato is a political media consultant and the managing editor for The New Media Journal.us. He is a contributing writer for The Washington Dispatch, GOPUSA, OpinionEditorials, Men’s News Daily, Canada Free Press & AmericanDaily. His pieces are regularly featured in Townhall.com. He has appeared as a guest on The O’Reilly Factor, The Kevin Matthews Radio Show (Chicago) and The Brad Messer Radio Show (San Antonio). His pieces have been recognized by the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention and are occasionally featured in The Washington Times and The London Morning Paper as well as other national and international publications.