so condeleezza rice will testify before the 9/11 commission this week. this isn't exactly timely news, because it was announced last week: rice & the white house had been stalling & dragging their feet for weeks, claiming that although condi really wanted to testify (yeah right), she couldn't because it would set a dangerous precedent... according to their claims, no chief of staff had ever testified under oath before a congressional commission.

but newsweek has uncovered that lie:

The grainy photograph rolled off the fax machine at the White House counsel's office last Monday morning, along with a scribbled note that smacked of blackmail. If the White House didn't allow national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify in public before the 9/11 commission, it read, "This will be all over Washington in 24 hours." The photo, from a Nov. 22, 1945, New York Times story, showed Adm. William D. Leahy, chief of staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, appearing before a special congressional panel investigating the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF TESTIFIES read the headline over the snapshot of Leahy's very public testimony. The point was clear: the White House could no longer get away with the claim that Rice's appearance would be a profound breach of precedent.

yes, the commission took the smart move of hiring a historian, who actually did some research & proved that history does repeat itself. condi lies, & high-level cabinet members testify when massive failures of national security occur.

what's interesting about the newsweek expose is that it doesn't actually print the photo in question (at least the web version doesn't). sure, it publicizes the existence of said photo, but why not print the thing? hell, even a search through google news does not turn up the acual photo. the yahoo news reprint of the story includes a link to what it cites as the photo, but clicking it only leads to a "newswire photo service" where it's possible the photo is available... but you must be registered & logged in to access the content.

if the mere existence of this photo is newsworthy (& i agree it certainly is), why won't anyone actually print the damn photo?