Dear Readers,

0 Comments | Insight on the News, April 13, 2004

Byline: Paul M. Rodriguez, INSIGHT

Dear Readers,

I'm madder than hell and I'm not going to take it anymore! And here's why: The facts are being distorted and thus the news is being used - intentionally and, perhaps, unintentionally - for political games at a time when nerves are raw, memories are painful and international resolve in the war on terror must not be confused or sidetracked by false press reports.

For example, Kelly Wallace of CNN reported during a segment on March 25 at slightly past 10:10 a.m. that Condoleezza Rice had refused to "testify" before the 9/11 commission. Such reporting may contain a slim element of some legal definition for testimony, but certainly it does not contain the truth or the context of the facts being reported - let alone reality.

In fact, Rice has testified before the 9/11 commission but not in public, at least not yet. She also has said in numerous TV, radio and print interviews that she has nothing to hide, is available at any time to talk with any and all members of the commission and that she'll continue to answer questions until there are no more to be asked.

Granted, she has not testified under oath in a public forum, but this does not mean she has refused to give testimony, refused to meet with the panel's members or refused to answer any question from the panel members and their staffs. Moreover, whether one is under oath OR NOT, it is illegal to give false witness to an authorized law-enforcement agency or to any authorized body empowered with subpoena authority, including the 9/11 commission.

The failure of the press to put Rice's several hours of testimony to the 9/11 commission in context is a disservice not only to the national-security adviser but to all of us around the globe who are trying honestly to figure out how to prevent such an attack from ever happening again.

As Rice herself has said in numerous press interviews, her personal preference is to testify before the 9/11 commission under oath and in public. But because she is not a Senate-approved nominee and serves only as a senior assistant to the president of the United States, there are legitimate constitutional fire-stops preventing her from being compelled to go public.

While some may argue that precedents exist that would allow Rice to testify "under oath," the facts also show that there are precedents discouraging people such as Rice from testifying before entities of the Congress.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the position of the White House not to allow Rice to testify publically under oath - and we are in favor of her doing so - the fact remains that Rice has testified before the panel for several hours already and is ready, willing and able to continue testifying at any time, including in public, White House sources tell us. But not under oath.

Sadly, the press has failed to place this into context and has opted to wave a red herring that suggests Rice, the White House and President George W. Bush are not cooperating with the panel and are hiding facts.

When the facts are clear, but the reporting is not, one has to wonder about the agenda of certain news organizations. It's one thing for members of the 9/11 commission to posture and play word games for political gain and quite another for the press to engage in such games. The news media already have substantial credibility problems, and the current brouhaha they have created surrounding Rice's so-called failure to testify only accentuates and exposes why much of the public does not trust the press.

Politically it might be a stupid move not to let Rice testify openly and under oath, given the press-induced hysteria over the matter, but that's another story. Let's get this one straight first.

From Washington, I'm your newsman on patrol for the facts. God bless.