The bill has suffered a series of defeats
He told BBC Radio 4's The World This Weekend: "The reality is that three months on, we are no less at risk now than we were on 12 or 13 September,"
"Although we've made tremendous progress against the al-Qaeda network and Osama Bin Laden, their network is out there."
Mr Blunkett wrote in the Sunday People: "I am not prepared to stand back and watch this country's fight against terrorism be sacrificed in some party political game.
"If he is serious about this and about fighting terrorism then he'd better get his troops in the Lords in order and help us give the police powers they need to protect this country."
Simultaneous ceremonies are being planned in London and Washington on Tuesday to mark the three month anniversary of the 11 September attacks in the US.
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair will be joined at the London event by the US Secretary of State Colin Powell, who will be in the UK for talks on the future of Afghanistan.
'Obligation to act'
Mr Blunkett suffered a series of defeats on a number of key clauses of the Anti-Terrorism, Security and Crime Bill in the House of Lords last week.
He told the World This Weekend: "It took months and years to plan the attack on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on 11 September.
"If [al-Qaeda] are planning terror attacks elsewhere - for instance in the US - and they are supported and helped from here, we have an obligation to take action against those doing that organising, funding and planning.
"That is the core of the legislation."
But Elizabeth France, the independent Information Commissioner, raised queries about measures in the bill requiring communications companies to retain details of e-mails, faxes and phone-calls.
She told The World This Weekend: "Clearly, if they are targeting particular individuals they can ask for particular information to be kept, but we are talking about vast amounts of information about all of us to be held by service providers."
There was a danger that information intended to be held for the purpose of combating terrorists would be used in relation to far less serious crimes, she warned.
'Dangerously illiberal'
Earlier Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said Mr Blunkett was behaving in a "dangerously illiberal" way.
Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin accused Mr Blunkett of "bullying" his opponents into accepting the legislation.
"We do not believe the bill should become a smokescreen to enable the government to ram through Parliament controversial legal changes which are not urgent or necessary in the fight against terrorism," he said.
Mr Blunkett has offered two amendments to the bill, which he will introduce to the House on Monday in an effort to ensure that it clears Parliament before the Christmas recess.