This July Fourth, Americans must not forget the overlooked reality that our nation has - for nearly seven years - avoided a major terrorist attack. Many citizens are quick to condemn the U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as President Bush's terrorist surveillance and interrogation programs. Criticism of these measures is usually unchallenged and unscrupulous, even fashionable in some quarters of American society.

But have we thought "outside the box" to question this paradigm? Have we considered that maybe - just maybe - America's security post-Sept. 11 is not accidental?

Americans may be rethinking their entrenched views on the Bush administration's national security record. The House of Representatives recently passed a bill that modernizes the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, ensuring that the 1978 law does not interfere with intelligence collection in a 21st century technology environment. It also provides retroactive immunity to any telecommunications companies that assisted the federal government with terrorist surveillance in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

When the wiretapping program was exposed by The New York Times in December 2005, Democratic politicians assailed it as just the latest attempt by the Bush Administration to expand presidential power and violate civil liberties. We all remember the catchphrase "domestic spying," a term strategically used by critics to smear and kill this vitally important national security initiative.

Today we are hearing a new catchphrase from the Democratic-controlled Congress: "Compromise."

Despite the past handwringing about so-called domestic eavesdropping and presidential abuse of power, bipartisan majorities in both chambers will soon ratify the administration's policy to monitor the communications of enemy targets without court approval, and protect telecommunications providers from excessive litigation. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has dramatically reversed his position. He claims he will support the FISA bill, legislation he vowed to filibuster as recently as November 2007.

It is easy to see why so many Democrats now support the Bush surveillance program. The administration's efforts are necessary to provide intelligence agencies with the information they need to thwart impending terrorist attacks. Sept. 11 made it tragically clear that America must not wait for a threat to materialize. Terrorists attack suddenly and without fair warning. In a fleeting moment, they can destroy thousands of innocent lives, and change many more forever. In order to counter this relentless danger, information is essential.

The Senate is set to vote on the final bill after the July Fourth recess. The delay will give liberal interest groups extra time to convince voters that the bill sanctions a domestic spying program. Americans must know that the Bush administration has always sought court approval for foreign intelligence activities aimed against U.S. citizens. The administration and Congress are merely trying to lift FISA's obstructive warrant requirements for surveillance targeting enemies located overseas.

Does it make any sense for American intelligence officials to obtain a court warrant to implement a wiretap against an al-Qaida operative in, say, the Middle East or Afghanistan?

Under the original 1978 FISA legislation, surveillance of communications involving U.S. telecommunications infrastructure is considered "electronic surveillance" requiring court approval. However, the rapid development of modern telecommunications technologies - from disposable cell phones to e-mail - engendered an unintended side effect: The law's 1978 notion of electronic surveillance began to encompass intelligence activities directed against enemies located overseas whose communications utilized American technology. As a result, intelligence officials were required to attain a warrant from the FISA court, and meet its cumbersome "probable cause" standard, in order to gather critical information concerning foreign terrorist targets. Even Bush's fiercest critics now agree that this dangerous and senseless obstacle must be revoked.

The current FISA legislation corrects the problem by redefining the old law's flawed conception of electronic surveillance. It clarifies FISA's jurisdiction, ensuring that any surveillance directed against foreign targets will not be subject to judicial review.

Foreign intelligence activities targeted at people in the United States will, as always, require court approval. The legislation simply fills the intelligence gap created by the explosion of new communications technologies - a gap that could easily be exploited by terrorists.

Political posturing about civil liberties and governmental abuse makes for attractive rhetorical flourishes, but when it comes to making concrete life-or-death decisions, the actions of many Democratic politicians speak louder than words. The political reversal on this issue is a tacit illustration that even the Democrats know Bush is doing something right in the war on terror. And it should be a wake-up call for all Americans this July Fourth that our president, though he remains unpopular, has pursued smart and effective national security policies, policies that have likely saved our freedoms and our lives.

(The writer is a candidate for a master's of public policy degree at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy. - Editor)