Richard Clarke was once described as "the most important person in the federal government you've never heard of." No longer. This week, in an explosive book, an interview on "60 Minutes," and in hearings before the commission investigating 9/11, Clarke has charged that, as a presidential adviser, he warned about the threat of Osama bin Laden long before the 9/11 attacks -- but that President Bush ignored the warnings.

Predictably, the Bush administration has denied this charge, and in response has attacked Clarke. "You have a real credibility problem" said one Republican member of the 9/11 commission, John F. Lehman, a Navy secretary under President Reagan. Others hint that Clarke is motivated by the prospect of a high-level position should John Kerry become president.

I believe Clarke is telling the truth. But, even more importantly, I believe key issues central to our national security are being ignored in the mudslinging.

I worked with Dick Clarke for years, including two at the White House, where we shared a suite of offices in the White House National Security Council. His commitment to the protection of the nation, and his high ethical standards, are to me beyond doubt. So are his qualifications. When he left the White House last year, Clarke had more experience in national security affairs by far than anyone else in the White House.

After 20 years rising through the Pentagon and State Department, he served three presidents -- George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and, for a time, George H.W. Bush -- as principal coordinator for counterterrorism. In my experience, Clarke is one of a very rare breed in any organization: passionately dedicated to the truth, relentless in driving for results, willing to make enemies in doing so -- and in the end very effective in delivering results.

And I know that, during the Clinton years and the transition to Bush, Osama bin Laden was the focus of Clarke's work -- to the point that he had a photograph of bin Laden next to his telephone. He coordinated significant and effective anti-terrorism actions that security restrictions prevent him, and the rest of us, from discussing. The president and his colleagues are of course fully aware of these.

Whether my judgment is right or wrong, whether you think Clarke is trying to get a job in the Kerry administration or not, two points have been missing from the discussion about Clarke's charges.

The first is that Clarke, unlike any other public official, has taken responsibility. He apologized to the nation, in public, that he and the government failed by not preventing the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001: "Your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. And I failed you. We tried hard. But that doesn't matter, because we failed."

Contrast this with George Tenet, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, who during the same testimony said, "So it's easy to go talk about what I didn't get them to do on Day 1, Day 2, or Day 3. That almost is the wrong way to talk about this from a historical perspective with a lot of experience, with a lot of mistakes we made and everybody else made -- no perfection in this deal." In other words, mistakes were made, but no one is to be blamed. No one is to be held accountable -- certainly not anyone in the intelligence community.

George W. Bush came in as president proclaiming that he would run the government like the CEO of a business -- but where is the accountability?

The real concern is not about what has already happened -- it is about what will come. Airplanes plunging into buildings are appropriately a security focus -- but what about vulnerabilities that may be exploited by terrorists in the future? Unfortunately, while good at searching our shoes, the Bush administration has shown a disturbing lack of vision as to what might come next.

Consider the possibility of disruptions to our electric power supply, or to the Internet or other telecommunications networks. All of those are vulnerable -- the Northeastern blackout last August (which, fortunately, did not affect Pittsburgh) is only an example. We know that other nations are investing in the capability to disrupt their enemies' vital systems -- and we suspect that terrorists, not being stupid, are doing the same.

Yet, in a reaction similar to what Clarke describes, the current administration chooses to downplay future threats. The responsibility for protection of vital systems like the Internet, telecommunications, and electric power has been shifted from a high-level White House position to one buried at least six levels down in the bureaucracy. Meanwhile, there is continued reliance on "voluntary" business cooperation in creating safer telecommunications and electricity infrastructures -- promises industry has made for years, and never fulfilled. And federal funding for real improvements in the security of vital telecom and electric systems is only being talked about.

Clarke is, in many ways, a prophet. In a few years we will be holding hearings about why nothing was done to protect the Internet and electric power from terrorist attacks. I will refrain, at that point, from saying "I told you so."