This is a good one.
You may have heard about the speech Condoleezza Rice was to give on Sept. 11, 2001. The Washington Post, which had access to only part of the speech, wrote last Thursday about it, noting that it outlined the administration's foreign policy, focusing mostly on missile defense.
You know missile defense. That's the insane plan that we'll protect ourselves by building a battery of missiles to shoot things out of the sky that someone might lob at us. If you've ever tried to shoot a bullet out of the air with another bullet from several miles away, you know how obvious and simple a solution this is.
The speech made little mention of terrorism and no mention of Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, or Islamist Terrorists in general. The speech would obviously provide valuable insight into what our government viewed as our defense and security priorities at the time of the attack.
Seems like there's a commission holding hearings right now to get to the bottom of that very question! How fortuitous!
Well, guess what. Really, you'll never guess.
The White House is refusing to release the speech to the 9/11 Commission. On what grounds could they possibly refuse to release a speech, you ask? Good question!
The answer, obviously, is that "draft documents are confidential." You see, until the very instant that a public speech is actually delivered, it's just a draft, and therefore confidential. They might have changed it a little before she gave it, and then you'd have a false impression. They might have changed "we need missile defense" to "we will find and kill Osama bin Laden, that rat bastard, wherever he hides! We are completely focused on him! OSAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
There are always last minute changes to a speech.
A spokesman for the White House had this to say, not at all predictably: "The White House is working with the commission to ensure that it has access to what it needs to do its job."
It's job, of course, being to ensure that the truth about the worst attack in our history is never known.
I should also point out that the Republicans have a long history of respect for the confidentiality of draft documents.