This story seems pretty damning at first glance.

Controversy over a possible missed U.S. opportunity for rapprochement with Iran grew on Wednesday as 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.''

Rice's spokesman denied she misled Congress and reiterated that she did not see the proposal.

And the evidence backing Leverett isÂ…? Well, non-existent, from what we can see in this article. Indeed, this is an accusation from someone who was NOT working for the NSC during the period he claims to know what Rice was or was not reading or being briefed on. Even the NY Times is forced to admit as much.

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.

So what has he been doing since leaving government? IÂ’m not 100% sure, but Ed Lasky at American Thinker points out this little detail that the Times certainly knew but left out of its article.

Might the New York Times have been able to fill in the time line and report that he is a partisan Democrat who went to work for the John Kerry campaign and that Kerry's defeat left to his future job prospects in a Kerry Administration in tatters. Instead the Times just reports that he "left government".

Gee, that detail puts LeverettÂ’s claim in a rather different light, doesnÂ’t it? He is a partisan Democrat who is looking for a high position in a DemocratICK campaign and a possible DemocratICK administration. Not only that, but he has been pushing for more US contact with the Islamist regime in Teheran, essentially the Iranian position on US-Iranian relations, since KerryÂ’s defeat. But the Times hides that information, because it would make Leverett significantly less credible.

Like I said the other day, the new motto for the NY Times is “We only print the news that fits.”

Posted by: Greg at 12:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 439 words, total size 3 kb.