If it really is a battle so exalted as the clash of civilizations, why did we try to fight it with Donald Rumsfeld's smaller Army? Why did we not pull together a genuine, committed coalition of allies? Why were Americans not asked to sacrifice, not even taxed to support a war that is costing $3 billion a week and driving up our staggering national debt?

Two days after the 9/11 attacks, Bush said, "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." When it became clear that we missed our best chance, Bush lowered the decibels, saying bin Laden wasn't really that important. This past weekend, however, he had another Osama hot flash, talking incessantly about the dangers he poses. If so, Mr. President, why did you allow the CIA to disband the special unit assigned for 10 years the mission of hunting him down?

Speaking about the secret CIA prisons and his need to expand the interrogation techniques used on detainees, Bush repeated his oft-used assertion, "America does not torture." What about the Human Rights Watch investigation concluding that torture and abuse were condoned, commonly used and rarely punished?

Bush claims to have read Thomas E. Ricks' excellent book, "Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq." I read it, too, and the author documents the interrogation techniques, the use of dogs, sexual humiliation, water-boarding, sleep deprivation and death threats. America does torture, Mr. President, and everyone knows it, which makes your fellow citizens worry about how our troops will be treated if captured by the evildoers.

In the week leading up to the 9/11 anniversary, Bush said he was confident that things were getting better in Iraq, that only a small number of Iraqis are engaged in sectarian violence. To whom is he speaking? Reports from the military in Iraq confirm the reality that the insurgency is becoming more sophisticated, better organized, making more and better bombs. There were 34,131 insurgent attacks last year compared to 26,496 in 2004. This year will top out much higher.

Our troops have moved into Baghdad in a concerted effort to make the city safe. That's not working either. On Wednesday, 62 bullet-ridden corpses, all bearing signs of torture, were found around the city, with another 40 killed by suicide bombs. With forces drawn into Baghdad, the Marine commander in Anbar Province says the situation is deteriorating there. Bush just keeps up his happy talk, as if saying things are getting better will somehow make it so.

Then there is Vice President Dick Cheney. First, he politicized the memorial event at the Pentagon by reprising the GOP's election-year theme that Iraqi war opponents are appeasers to a "gang of fanatics trying to murder their way to power." Then, on "Meet the Press," Cheney affirmed that even if he had known there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, "If we had to do it over again we'd do exactly the same thing." Two days later, Bush echoed Cheney, saying, "Let me just tell you that I've never been more convinced that the decisions I've made are the right decisions."

Bush dishonors the memory of 9/11 and of those who died that day by twisting it to his purposes in the midterm elections. Once again the GOP will seek to wring political victory from the terrorism theme, though the latest polls from NBC News indicate that two-thirds of the public do not see Iraq as the key to fighting terrorists. Bush and Cheney lead the parade. Rumsfeld follows grumping about "Appeasers!" and "Islamo-fascists!" Then comes House Majority Leader John Boehner, asking his deplorable question, "Are the Democrats more interested in protecting America or the terrorists?"

Bush says we must put aside our differences. The very idea makes my head swim.