Well, the Supremes said that the coronation of King George wasn't supposed to set a precedent either. And since he didn't win the election, I think of him as un-Precedent Bush. He certainly doesn't act very precedential.

Have you heard the caveat in Rice's agreement that, once she testifies, the Commission will call no other senior administration officials? Now THAT is a sweetheart deal.

"Good evening, Ms. Rice. May I show you to your sword?"

And yet, the President seems to be agreeing to meet, finally, with the whole panel... but not unsupervised.

I have difficulty looking at yesterday's decisions as progressive for truth. Beyond the whole silliness of the President of the United States being part of a tag team, there are also the issues of no recording of the answers beyond a staff member taking notes. (Can a stenographer be admitted?), as well as the lack of follow-ups with additional WH staff members to mediate any conflicts which arise between Rice and others. (Josh Marshall has more on that particular aspect.)

To me it feels like a crushing defeat: sure, obtaining Rice's testimony was important, but the 9/11 panel had her over a barrel if they chose to see it that way; they could merely have promised to disregard/discount all testimony which was not sworn.

Really, you all need to add the Knight-Ridder Washington Bureau to your personal booklinks. They have a GREAT article on the tag team implications.