Ms. Rice is practicing the Libby Memory Defense. I don't believe it will work for Mr. Libby, but she's welcome to try.

How can Rice look herself in the mirror each day...she "can't remember" the Presidential Briefing about "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the United States" AND an Iranian offer for diplomacy.

She should be forced to resign. Who in Congress will have the spine to ask?

She's just stonewalling. You can tell when a Congressperson asks an important question if the subject either forgets or demurs to the future when they could maybe return with the information the asker is seeking (cf. Gonzales).

Jaimie:

Condi for Prez may have quieted down but she is still being polled and ranked for Vice Perz, e.g., at the Political Insider.

In Rice's comments broadcast yesterday on NPR, Rice stated that she "would have remembered" if Iran proposed recognizing Isreal. That's pretty hard to square with the language in the fax stating that Iran would discuss the U.S. goals of stopping Iranian support for violent actions "within borders of 1967" and "acceptance of Arab League Beirut declaration (Saudi initiative, two-states-approach)."

For reference, the Beirut Declaration stated that the Arab signatories would "Establish normal relations with Israel" (in exchange for conditions that, admittedly, Isreal wouldn't accept).

Did I hear Rice correctly? Or is she trying to differentiate between "discussing" recognition and actually "recognizing"? Or is she just a really dumb liar?

Incredible! Certainly the Iranian offer may have been been bogus and a ploy, but for Condi to pretend it never occurred or she doesn't recall tells us all that anyone needs to know about this lying incompetent.

The only way I have been able to put our Secretary of State in focus was to go up to the attic and dust off an ancient copy of "The Peter Principal" but even that does not account for the bad lying and disconnect. "I believe the title of the Memo was.."

Kevin Drum was as I recall on top of this Iranian overture early on. I sent an email to Josh about the significance of the overture and its rejection by the Administration; his reply to me suggested that the Administration justified its rejection on the basis that the manner of transmission (via Swiss intermediary) was inappropriate diplomatic protocol).

At the referenced point in time (early 2003) Bush, Cheney, et al were flush with testosterone so it's hard to imagine they would have been responsive to any overture from Iran, whatever the content, legitimacy, or means of transmission.

We can only speculate on what would have ensued had the overture been genuine and had the Administration been genuinely responsive. The tragedy is that we may never know.

I could see Rice was a liar from the first moment I laid eyes on her, you know...You can just see it on her. How can she possibly expect anyone to believe she can't recall a fax from IRAN of such magnitude to change the course of events, acting like she'd never read it in all these three years? So easy to see through so why would we expect anything but dishonesty from her in the future. You just can't believe her and she's the SOS. Is it a requirement for this administration that appointees have no conscience. Rice is incapable of telling the truth unless it's part of the Bush/Cheney agenda. Totally lacking in character and an embarrassment to her office and the American people. There's still time for redemption Condi...just refuse to be a pawn.

And to think she represents me to the outside world. But it is consistent. Bush/Cheney/Rice, a menage made in hell.

LOL. Folks talking about Condi for Prez reminded me of this site from a couple of years ago. It appears to still be kept current. But hoo-boy! Just reading the text on the front page made me laugh out loud. Great stuff!
http://draftcondi.org/

What the Whitehouse has tried to keep out of the US media regarding Iran's offer for cooperation with the US:

The redacted Iran op-ed revealed

What the information reveals is a series of events in which US-Iran dialogue broke down. In the aftermath of 9/11, the cooperative spirit around the world sparked by America's victimhood encouraged Iran to collaborate with the United States in its effort to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan. But the goodwill that might have been sustained by those early negotiations was undermined by a series of disputes between the US and Iran.

The matters that particularly undermined US-Iran dialogue involved the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq(MEK) -- an anti-Tehran militia that had been given safe harbor by Saddam Hussein in Iraq and had surrendered to the US -- as well as US allegations that Iran was giving safe haven to al Qaeda terrorists who had fled Afghanistan. ...

From the Washington Post on October 29, 2003 by Glenn Kessler:

The Bush administration has urged Iran to turn over al Qaeda members. Armitage in his testimony linked Iran's cooperation on al Qaeda to better relations with the United States, saying "resolution of this issue would be an important step in U.S.-Iranian relations." But he told reporters that it is not a prerequisite to restarting the talks. Iran has privately suggested to the administration that it will turn over al Qaeda members in exchange for captured members of the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK), an Iranian opposition group that had operated out of Iraq. Armitage ruled out such a deal yesterday, "because we can't be sure of the way they'd be treated," referring to the MEK members. He said officials were questioning MEK members to determine who had terrorist connections. "In my understanding, a certain number of those do," he said, adding that they will face charges. Under questioning, Armitage said it was a mistake for the U.S. military to have arranged a cease-fire agreement with the MEK during the war, a decision that alarmed Iran. "We shouldn't have been signing a cease-fire with a foreign terrorist organization," he said.

Barbara Slavin in USA Today on May 21, 2003:

A fledgling dialogue between Iran and the United States has broken down over mutual accusations of support for terrorism, U.S. and Iranian officials said Wednesday. White House officials confirmed a report in the Los Angeles Times that the United States had canceled a meeting scheduled in Geneva on Wednesday because of U.S. assertions that Iran is harboring al-Qaeda leaders implicated in suicide bombings in Saudi Arabia last week that killed 34 people, including eight Americans. A senior Iranian diplomat denied the charges, however, and said the cancellation was mutual. He said Iran was angry over the U.S. failure to disarm an Iranian opposition group based in Iraq, the Mujahedin-e Khalq, that is on a U.S. State Department list of terrorist groups. "Our information is that you have not disarmed the Mujahedin, and it is the height of hypocrisy for the United States to be criticizing Iran, which has captured more al-Qaeda than any other country," said the diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity. A State Department official, who also asked not to be named, said the opposition group was being forced to give up its weapons, although it was unclear what would happen to the group's 3,500 members. "We want the Iranians to fulfill their obligations concerning terrorism just as we do," he said.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/The_redacted_Iran_oped_revealed_1222.html

There are lots more referrences to the Iranian offer and the US's choice to not negotiate with them in this article.

This document does not seem like one that came from the Iranians, but a document that was generated by most likely someone in the State Department about what Iranian aims for talks would be, and what US aims should be in response.

The fact that you cannot see on this document who it was sent to or from makes me a bit suspicious. The contents of the document have been cropped to remove the heading and margins. Why?

Richard Adolf- maybe she should be given a make-over on Queer Eye? The poor dear obviously can't dress herself.

jonny4