Matt Yglesias has a couple of interesting posts regarding reaction to the Senate Select Intel Committee report, the charge of "group think" at the CIA (as opposed to among administration hawks who cherished not only the conviction in the existence of WMD stockpiles in Iraq but fantasies of Saddam's intimate cooperation with Osama bin Laden as well), and lots of recent back and forth on the issue of whether and when Iraq might have sought to purchase uranium in Niger. To say I've been studying some of these issues a lot would be to vastly underestimate the amount of work invested. For now, let me just point out a couple things.

The gist of the push back on the Niger uranium issue in places like the FT can basically be summed up like this: elements of other European intelligence agencies, including in France, Britain, and Italy, thought there might be something to the allegation that Iraq might have been seeking uranium in Niger. After all, Iraq did acquire uranium from Niger in the 1980s. But nobody -- not even the FT which has been carrying water for those who are trying to blow smoke around this subject, or the administration-friendly Senate report -- is suggesting that the Niger uranium docs peddled in Italy in October 2002 were anything but counterfeit. Not even the Italians. Indeed, the Italians are desperately trying to distance themselves from anything having to do with the documents.

So, just keep in mind, that there are several stories becoming intertwined here, and it's not helpful. One story line is: did Iraq seek to purchase uranium in Niger in 1999-2000. A second story line is: what are the sources for this allegation, if true? A third story line, which should not be confused with the first story line, is: who tried to put into circulation the crudely forged documents that would seek to show Iraq had tried to purchase uranium in Niger in 1999. The first story line can be true or false without affecting the deception at the heart of the third story line.

Another point: Matt points to an interesting section of the SSIC report, that seeks to explain why the CIA and State Department analysts were immediately skeptical of whether the Niger docs were genuine. From page 58 of the report:

(U) The INR Iraq nuclear analyst told Committee staff that the thing that stood out immediately about the documents was that a companion document - a document included with the Niger documents that did not relate to uranium - mentioned some type of military campaign against major world powers. The members of the alleged military campaign included both Iraq and Iran, and was according to the documents, being orchestrated through the Nigerien Embassy in Rome, which all struck the analyst as "completely implausible." Because the stamp on this document matched the stamp on the uranium document, the analyst thought that all of the documents were likely suspect. The analyst was unaware at the time of any formatting problems with the documents or inconsistencies with the names or dates.

I believe this is a copy of the "companion document" that the INR Iraq nuclear analyst found so implausible.

When you read this, it is so laughably outrageous, so cooked up out of some utterly goonish central casting spook house (or else a really truly funny Saturday Night Live crew), it requires its whole own Senate report treatment. [The translation borrowed from David Loepp's posting at Cryptome]:

CONFIDENTIAL

REPORT ON THE MEETING REALIZE[D] WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN OF ACTION "GLOBAL SUPPORT"

Our group, which met today June 14, 2002, at 4 PM in the residence of the Iraqi ambassador, via della Camillucia n° 355 in Rome has determined as follows:

The group directed by the ambassadors of Niger, Sudan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Iran have decided that "Global Support" which is composed of specialists belonging to different military corps of the allied countries will be active immediately.

We are convinced that the high profession of the military belonging to "Global Support" are qualified with considerable experiences and very diversified in the sectors of defence and security and without a doubt they are responsible for the tasks assigned to them.

The Global Support (our group) is active worldwide, in all areas and extreme climates.

The competences of the members of Global Support are the following:

- Our support will above all be extended to:

governments subjected to an embargo;

governments continually suspected, and without just cause, of producing nuclear, biological, chemical weapons;

governments accused, without just cause, of international terrorism;

Islamic patriots accused of belonging to criminal organizations, to cells having non-existent ramifications;

Gee, you think the CIA might find something a little fishy about documents that basically purport to be the Rosetta Stone of all rogue Islamic countries taking notes of their meeting where they conspired together to forge a military alliance to defeat sanctions against fellow rogue regimes? A meeting supposedly held in the Iraq ambassador's residence in Rome, where surely none of the participating countries' ambassadors could have any inkling they might be under any sort of surveillance? And written in French that is not even correct? Glad the CIA caught that.

If it had been signed, P.S. We love you Saddam, it couldn't have been more cooked up, more staged. [I especially like the bit "Global Support (our group)..." part way down, just in case you didn't catch the first few times that the group was calling itself "Global Support."]

But even in such outrageous forgeries, there are clues about the thinking of the deceivers. Both of the people who might have created such a document, and of those who tried to put a package of such documents into circulation. Hersh's theory that the documents might have been created by anti-administration elements who wanted to ultimately embarrass the administration willing to seize on them for a time seems not implausible, when one gets a glimpse at how almost comically outrageous these documents are.

Posted by Laura at July 10, 2004 04:29 PM