Vacation is over...

Vacation is over, and now I can get some rest. I spent a few days at a beautiful park here in Maine called Peaks-Kenny, which is on Sebec Lake in Dover-Foxcroft. A great place to camp. They have running water (toilets and showers) , so it's camping with a hint of civilization. Of course, after spending the weekend outside I have come to the conclusion that modern man isn't supposed to spend this much time outside. I have the ultra-swanky LL Bean tent that is designed to keep you dry in inclement weather (it always rains when I go camping) and the ultra-comfy air matress for my sleeping comfort, but when I got home I was exhausted. I got the camping stuff up over the stairs and collapsed in my luxurious bed for four hours, and could have slept longer. Of course, what would camping be without the sunburn (I only sat in the sun for 15 minutes and it was overcast!), and dehyradration.

I did enjoy the time with my wife without the distration of the TV, internet, and cell phone (no reception). And watching Campfire TV is great (most just call it a fire but as the wood chars and the fire blazes there is a real fascination that takes over). I am glad I have returned to civilization. The DVD player is calling to me...

Now on to something a little different. OpinionJournal.com features some commentary on Sandy Berger's "docs-in-socks" incident. President Clinton tries to shrug the comment aside attributing Berger's actions to absentmindedness rather than subterfuge, but for cryin' out loud, he shoved a specific document in his sock. That shows focus, not just using an article of clothing as a filing cabinet. From the piece at Opinion Journal:

Which raises the obvious question: What was in that document that Mr. Berger so badly wanted to keep under his hat, er, trousers? The only way to answer that question is for the Justice Department to release it.

The 9/11 Commission report offers a tease. It records Mr. Berger's objections to at least four proposed attacks on al Qaeda between 1998 and 2000. A footnote on page 500 puts it this way: "In the margin next to Clarke's suggestion to attack al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote 'no.' "

The Clarke in that footnote, of course, is Richard Clarke. He is the author of the document Mr. Berger pinched from the archives, an after-action review of the Clinton Administration's response to al Qaeda's 1999 threats against the U.S. In his own testimony to the Commission, Attorney General John Ashcroft--who has the advantage of having read the document--says that in it Mr. Clarke attributes such success as the Clinton Administration had against al Qaeda to luck rather than skill.

That belies the public line taken by both Mr. Berger and Mr. Clarke, which is no small matter given how critical both have been about the Bush Administration these past few months. Certainly their own credibility is an issue, as is that of Mr. Clinton, who has also claimed that he told Mr. Bush how consumed he was with al Qaeda.

Still, the main public interest here has nothing to do with fixing blame on either Mr. Berger, Mr. Clarke or the Clinton Administration for what they did or did not do pre-9/11. To the contrary, it has to do with the single largest question of this election: How America ought to respond to the terror threat.

While this might mean nothing to Mr. Kean, surely it has some implications for voters in this election. The Bush Administration has been taking knocks for not having made al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden the priority Mr. Berger said it was during the Clinton years. Yet neither Attorney General Ashcroft nor National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice even saw this Clarke report until after the 9/11 terrorists had struck.

Perhaps if they had, America would have been on a more aggressive footing earlier on. At the least, releasing the Clarke after-action report now would provide better context for weighing such ongoing political accusations as the charge that the Bush Administration's concern about Iraq was simply a fantasy of a "neoconservative" cabal.

And former president Bill Clinton thinks that Bush ruined all the advances of his eight year reign in office? I think it is the other way around. President Clinton and those like Berger/Clarke kept the Bush administration from performing their jobs successfully and protecting the people of this country from a terrrorist attack.