Chatty Condi

I don't want to say that Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission was miserable failure but, coming home from work, I heard the local AM wingut and his guest, "Dr. History," play a clip of the following as their prime example of Rice's "excellent" testimony:

Let me read you some of the actual chatter that was picked up in that spring and summer.

Unbelievable news coming in weeks, said one.

Big event.

There will be a very, very, very, very big uproar.

There will be attacks in the near future.

Troubling, yes, but they don't tell us when.

They don't tell us where.

They don't tell us who.

And they don't tell us how.

And they didn't send an engraved invitation and a Mapquest link either.

I also heard "Dr. History" commit historical malpractice by repeating the canard (which he attributed to V.D. Hanson) that there were no commissions organized to investigate the attack on Pearl Harbor. Interestingly, the good doctor qualified his statement by saying there was no Pearl Harbor commission in 1943. (His statement was along the lines of "could you imagine if a commission was set up in 1943 to investigate Pearl Harbor?") I wonder he intended to decieve his wingnut listeners by selecting the only year from 1941 to 1945 in which there was no active investigation of the attack on Pearl Harbor.