This edition relates to Condi Rice’s claim that she never saw the diplomatic overture from Iran in 2003 that we bungled by totally ignoring it. Rice says she’s pretty sure she never saw it because she doesn’t remember seeing it. And she would remember. Because, apparently, she’s the kind of person who tends to remember when important things like this that cry out for immediate action are brought to her attention. (Okay, maybe it didn’t work so well with George Tenet’s famous pre-9/11 panic-button briefing about al Qaeda, but it would totally work with anything else. Trust her.)

(And let’s just gloss over the logical inconsistency of the snake lady’s statement: “I don’t remember, so I’m sure it didn’t happen”. In fact, didn’t the Libby defence pretty much establish the scientific invalidity of that proposition?)

The controversy over Rice’s improbable Iran overture claim is getting stronger instead of fading away:

Controversy over a possible missed U.S. opportunity for rapprochement with Iran grew on Wednesday as (a) former aide accused Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of misleading Congress on the issue.

Flynt Leverett, who worked on the National Security Council when it was headed by Rice, said a proposal vetted by Tehran’s most senior leaders was sent to the United States in May 2003 and was akin to the 1972 U.S. opening to China.

Speaking at a conference on Capitol Hill, Leverett said he was confident it was seen by Rice and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell but “the administration rejected the overture.”
[…]
“The Bush administration up to and including Secretary Rice is misleading Congress and the American public about the Iran proposal,” he said.

Testifying before a U.S. Congress committee last week, Rice, said about Leverett’s previous public comments on the Iranian proposal: “I don’t know what Flynt Leverett’s talking about.”

She faulted him for not telling her, “We have a proposal from Iran and we really ought to take it.”

But Leverett has a perfectly reasonable explanation for not telling her:

He said he had left the National Security Council, which advises the president on security issues, in March 2003 before the Iranian proposal was received. He returned to the CIA where he previously worked and soon after left government. Hence, he was not in a position to make this case directly to Rice, he said

Funny how the “I would remember” lady doesn’t remember that. And aren’t highfalutin folk like her supposed to have notes and records and stuff that they consult when they’re giving testimony before Congress?

Colin Powell has not yet commented on the overture; presumably he is not denying that it was a) received, and b) seen by the administration. (It’s too late for anyone to deny that the document even exists. WaPo reports that “a copy … has circulated in Washington and was verified by Iranian and U.S. officials”. So Condi’s defense is that as National Security Adviser she was kept out of the loop about such an important development involving an Axis of Evil country?

To paraphrase Condi’s boss, what’s worse, that she saw the overture and is now lying about it or that she wasn’t even told?

Or maybe we should ask: Which scenario is more credible? Because the fact of the matter is that if Bush had lost confidence in his National Security Adviser but not yet got around to firing her, she might well have been kept out of the loop. But Bush never lost confidence in her, did he? Presumably even Condi doesn’t want to argue that she was promoted to Secretary of State because Bush had lost confidence in her?