Rice Testimony

This whole Condaleeza Rice testifying snafu is really baffling... I just read this article at CNN, "Photo may have nudged Bush on Rice testimony." The photograph in question "shows Adm. William D. Leahy -- White House chief of staff under Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman -- appearing before a congressional panel investigating the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, spokesman Al Felzenberg said."

The article continues, "Felzenberg said commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow faxed the photo Monday to the White House counsel's office to show there was a historical precedent for Rice to testify publicly and under oath." But if a photo of a National Security Advisor testifying is evidence of precedent, does that mean that no matter what Rice says now--no matter how strenuously she insists that this is a one-time act--that a simply photograph is enough to transform her testimony into precedence? Admiral Leahy may have also insisted that his testimony not become precedent -- but the funny thing about precedence is it just needs to exist. After that point it's kinda hard to control.