Stakes high as Rice talks to 9/11 panel

But the intensity of the attention paid to the moment Rice takes the stand suggests another question -- that is, whether the combined glare of the political and media spotlights will illuminate the truth or rather blind the public to it. Sworn testimony is not the only factor being weighed. Public satisfaction with this process will turn not only on the candor of the witnesses, but on the independence and skill of the hearing tribunal and the unbiased tenacity of the press.

As the national security adviser to a sitting president, Rice's title and high visibility give her instant credibility. The competence and professionalism she's displayed now for more than three years along with the resources of the White House to assist her before, during, and after her testimony will weigh heavily in her favor.

But as the first woman and first African-American to serve in the role, she will have to battle stereotypes about her competence that loom in the imagination of skeptical viewers. And this new level of visibility may test whether she is truly an insider in the White House power structure or a marginal player.

A laudable result of civic participation, the bipartisan investigatory panel was formed through the private actions of a handful of survivors of victims of the attacks who transcended individual political history and leanings. Each member of the 9/11 Commission asserts that the panel has no set political agenda.

But, as did the testimony of counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, Rice's testimony may test the commission's resolve. If it attempts to frame the testimony as a "he said/she said" battle pitting Clarke's word against Rice's and calling it a draw, this highly qualified body will have failed. The panel has before it a record of facts, as presented in documents and augmented by testimony, which must be viewed and analyzed.

Eventually the commission will have to evaluate the adequacy of judgments made prior to 9/11 and determine how we best move forward. In this context, without a showing of gross incompetence or malfeasance, accusations of perjury amounting to frivolous criminalization of policymakers' judgments have no place. Such behavior encourages more secrecy and threatens any hope for public accountability.

This commission will likely resist indulging in spurious charges and biased assessments about competence. Other important players in this scenario may not. Veteran anti-terrorism expert Clarke's testimony spawned political and media portrayals of him as an overly ambitious, greedy, "chicken little" whose testimony was beyond believability. Rice may meet with false characterizations that appeal to gender or racial bias. Already allusions to her being "clueless" about Osama Bin Laden and references to her by the nickname Condi smack of condescension.

Rice and each witness before and after are storytellers in this very public arena. As has already been revealed, the stories that each tells about the same events can differ significantly depending on perspective. But the real stakes of this exercise, the road we will take to fight terrorism and the confidence the public has in its processes for truthfinding, demand some accuracy.

To fully comprehend the tragedy of the 9/11 attacks, the commission and the media must be clear about their roles. Perhaps as much as the witnesses themselves, those two entities will shape the story on which the public will come to rely. But this is not an episode that is capable of instant analysis. The full story may take months, even years to uncover.

We are best served by a commission that views all the information available, not just the version conveniently declassified by the White House. The media, in their position of trust, must get beyond the political operatives' spin to expose facts relevant to the testimony. If we lose confidence in the hearings process and the surrounding coverage, we may lose the opportunity for needed change and make a mockery of the commendable effort that led to the commission's creation.

Anita F. Hill is a professor of law, social policy, and women's studies at the Heller School of Policy and Management at Brandeis University.