Comments (31)

mbbsdphil wrote on February 9, 2007 3:21 PM:

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

jaimie wrote on February 9, 2007 3:34 PM:

There you go again, picking on poor Condi!
Seriously, hasn't it long been apparent that she is in way over her head especially as she has never been anything more than a shill for the BushCheney Ponzi Scheme?
I think it perfectly likely that the VP just never showed Condi the fax. Why would he after all?
Last thought: how long ago were people running around talking Condi for Pres?
Funny how we never hear that anymore.

Sha wrote on February 9, 2007 3:35 PM:

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?

Old Larry wrote on February 9, 2007 3:52 PM:

Where has decency, honor, competency and patriotism gone? Why can't the likes of Schumer or Warner or both press for the dismissal of the worst Secretary of State since WW2.

EH wrote on February 9, 2007 3:53 PM:

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).

Supdog wrote on February 9, 2007 3:55 PM:

One of Rice's most irritating qualities is that she's a truly horrible liar and doesn't realize it.

ArthurKC wrote on February 9, 2007 4:05 PM:

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.

benjoya wrote on February 9, 2007 4:19 PM:

bushCo wouldn't go for it cause it was too hard on al qaeda. never know what they might cough up.

dbm wrote on February 9, 2007 4:23 PM:

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?

john o. wrote on February 9, 2007 4:44 PM:

What a shock to learn that Condi is dissembling in support of an immoral effort by a completely discredited president to start yet another needless and tragic war.

scribe1937` wrote on February 9, 2007 5:25 PM:

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.

CosbyKid wrote on February 9, 2007 5:41 PM:

Rice is a well known and proven liar. Why should her memory loss be viewed as anthing more than another lie?

Barry Workman wrote on February 9, 2007 5:46 PM:

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.."

Noam Sane wrote on February 9, 2007 6:10 PM:

That fax is simply an historical document. Remember, we don't pay attention to those.

Joe wrote on February 9, 2007 6:22 PM:

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.

rapier wrote on February 9, 2007 7:05 PM:

Condi may be dumb but she isn't stupid. Not remembering the Iranian approach is exactly the thing she was hired to forget. She could have moved past her pro BAPness as middle age approached, a black princess adopted by powerfull middle aqed white guys, but she embraced it internalized so totally the thinking of her bosses that she is like an puppet.

bjobotts wrote on February 9, 2007 7:17 PM:

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.

Anonymous wrote on February 9, 2007 7:57 PM:

"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."

All she's interested in when she looks in the mirror is whether she's ready for the photographers.

Frank wrote on February 9, 2007 9:43 PM:

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

Richard L. Adlof wrote on February 9, 2007 10:05 PM:

Please forgive the catty nature of this post:

"How can Rice look herself in the mirror each day..."

The simple answer is she doesn't.

1. The Doris Day hairdo,

2. The jackbooks & 'Matrix' wear

3. Chairman Mao jackets

I am guessing that the memory lapse is merely a symptom of the black-out drinking she is persuing to forget her P.o.S. fashion sense . . . . or is it the cause?

editor wrote on February 9, 2007 11:13 PM:

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/

Eddie wrote on February 10, 2007 12:30 AM:

Ooooh, dat's gotta hoit!

BW wrote on February 10, 2007 1:06 AM:

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.

BW wrote on February 10, 2007 1:13 AM:

2004 post by Juan Cole talks about the Iranian offer and the US's choice to harbor the MEK terrorist group too:

2003 NBC report: "These three, among the most wanted members of Al Qaeda. The alleged poison expert who got medical treatment in Iraq, [Abu Mussab al Zarqawi]. Bin Laden's third oldest son, [Sa'ad bin Laden], known to be planning new Al Qaeda operations. The Al Qaeda spokesman, [Suleiman abu Gaith], famous for introducing bin Laden in this videotape after 9/11. Many US officials believe that Iran is willing to turn them and other key Al Qaeda operatives over to the US or their home countries -- for a price -- in exchange for members of an Iranian opposition group called the Mujahadeen al-Khalq, or the MEK. The MEK has been attacking Iran's Islamic government from Iraq and is now there under US military control."

..."[W]hen Iran won't accommodate the Neocons because of the latters' ties to MEK, the neocons decide to smear Iran as "harboring" terrorists and "sending" them to Iraq. They know this path might even lead to a US war on Iran, which is what they want. That is one reason they did not want the prisoner exchange to succeed"

http://www.juancole.com/2004/08/newsweek-franklin-confesses-aipac.html

Still more info on this here (this is a really good article):

On Cheney, Rumsfeld order, US outsourcing special ops, intelligence to Iraq terror group, intelligence officials say
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/US_outsourcing_special_operations_intelligence_gathering_0413.html

Seixon wrote on February 10, 2007 11:14 AM:

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?

Peter H wrote on February 10, 2007 6:57 PM:

Sexion,

In none of the reports I've seen on the Iranian proposal has anyone questioned its authenticity. People working in the State Department at the time - Flynt Leverett, Richard Haas, Lawrence Wilkerson -- have confirmed that it was drafted by an Iranian diplomat and passed on via a Swiss intermediary. However, it's possible that Iran wasn't sincere, or that certain elements ruling Iran weren't behind the proposal.

barrelhse wrote on February 11, 2007 11:45 AM:

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

Seixon wrote on February 17, 2007 1:50 PM:

Peter H,

There's no question that the document is authentic, that's not what I'm talking about. It's whether or not the document is actually a proposal coming from Iran, rather than an internal US policy document summarizing what Iran wants and what the US should ask of Iran in the case they should try to work things out.

In other words, what the document looks like to me is that someone at the State Department was tasked with drawing up what a bargain between the US and Iran would look like, and that this was forwarded around to be analyzed and contemplated.

The fact that the supposed cover letter from the Swiss ambassador is not displayed, and that the document seems to have been cropped to remove any headings, dates, stamps, etc, seems a bit funny to me.

It seems to me that someone is trying to pass off an internal US document as if it were an overture from Iran to create a story.

jonny16 wrote on February 17, 2007 10:34 PM:

jonny4

harry@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 6:48 AM:

Generic Cialis. Buy Generic Cialis

juddy@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 9:07 PM:

hello