Echo Theory. Matt Yglesias is up on the Butler report's findings on Niger uranium. I have read through that section a couple times and am bound to have further thoughts later. One observation I share with Matt: as helpfully searchable as the Butler report is (unlike the version of the report the Senate released), the Butler report sheds little light on what were the Brits' actual sources on the Africa uranium issue. Indeed, the sourcing seems deliberately obscured. [Of course, intelligence agencies try to protect sources and methods; but our Senate report did at least indicate if sources were "a foreign government," Curve Ball, INC defectors, etc., without naming them.]

Why would the sourcing be obscured? I suspect for three reasons. A possible one, as I have mentioned, is to protect sources. Secondly, because it seems there was an echo chamber among four governments at issue: Britain, France, Italy and the US. In other words, what seemed like multiple independent sources for the Niger uranium claim actually turned out to be the echo of one source multiple times, plus perhaps another source [but the Butler report, frustratingly, won't make this clear.] And then it turned out that the one source that echoed through four governments was content in documents that were later deemed counterfeit. And three, the sensitivity for the British government that it was the named source of the information the US president cited - and later his staff recanted - on the Niger uranium issue.

And while I'm at it, here's a theory for a second echo. Months before the documents got into US hands, there was one, possibly two governments' reporting of essentially the content in some of the documents to allied intelligence agencies. [e.g. the fake contract about the 500 tons -- which turned out to be counterfeit.]

Keep in mind that some of the documents that make up the "Niger uranium documents" were not fakes at all, and were essentially copies of telexes planning the real trip that the former Iraqi ambassador to the Holy See made to Niger and three other western African countries in 1999. In other words, there was a real trip to Niger by an Iraqi official. Copies of real documents planning that trip between the Niger and Iraqi embassies were part of the mix of documents - some outrageous forgeries, some genuine - that were later given to the US Embassy in October 2002.

Let me explain what I think might have happened in this echo theory. Let's say you have Countries A, B, and C. Country A reports to allied countries B and C in 2000, we have intelligence that Iraqi ambassador to the Holy See al-Zawahie went to four west African countries in 1999. We believe the purpose for that visit was possibly talks to inquire about purchasing uranium. Who he met with and dates might have been reported to allied agencies.

Allied agencies store the report, more or less. It's pretty thin.

Then 9/11 happens in Country B. In October 2001, Country C's intelligence service reports to Country B, Hey, Special Friend, we have intelligence that Iraq might have sought to discuss acquiring uranium in Niger in 1999. [Country C does not share with Country B the source of that report. But keep in mind the possibility that Country C's and Country A's report on that trip may in fact originate from the same source, documentation of or surveillance of the Iraqi ambassador to the Vatican's 1999 trip to Niger, Congo-Brazzaville, etc.]

Country B's intelligence service analyst looks at that new intelligence report from Country C and says, "noted, but thin."

But a few months later, in December 2001, Country A, the original source of this report, (again) reports to Country B, we have information that Iraq sought to discuss uranium in Niger in 1999. They offer more details. Country B's DIA issues a new report.

The vice president from Country B hears about this report, and says to country B intelligence service, I'd like to know more.

So Country B has heard from two sources -- Country A and Country C -- that there is this report of an Iraqi offiical visiting Niger in 1999 potentially for the purpose (what else could it be?) of discussing purchasing uranium. And it asks for more information. In February 2002, Country B gets a much more detailed briefing from Country A [according to the Senate report].

So detailed that, when Country B, finally, eight months later, in October 2002, actually acquires copies of the documents, and determines they are counterfeit, Country B believes the report it received in February 2002 from Country A had to be based on these counterfeit documents...This casts considerable doubt on the reports on this issue Country B received from Country A.

But there's still the report Country B received from Country C. We basically know the rest.

But you can see why the actual sources for Country C on these reports would be important to understanding, how much of what it reported to Country B was "an echo" of what came from Country A and which has been discredited, and how much is original and new and not discredited.

[We know from the Senate report p. 69 that the original source for France's report to the US on the Niger uranium issue was based on the counterfeit docs.]

And it seems to me the Butler report deliberately obscures what was/were Country C's sources for the Niger uranium issue, because, let's face it, this is an issue of pretty extreme political sensitivity for Country C. The president of Country B cited Country C as the source for precisely one "factoid" in his SOTU. And despite the fact that Country B's national security team ultimately publicly said, the president shoudn't have cited that factoid from Country C, it's a major point of embarrassment in Country C that it might have provided to country B intelligence which later looked too dubious to cite as a case for war. So, it's sensitive for Country C.

That said, British press reports preceding the release of the Butler report suggested the British had another source for the claim Iraq possibly sought to discuss acquiring uranium in Niger and in DR Congo. I believe that source is what some reports have referred to as a Somali businessman. The Butler report makes zero mention of a Somali businessman. Would be interesting to find out more about him if he exists. Especially given Italy's interesting long historical involvement with Somalia.

Indeed, I have just done searches through the Butler report, and there is only one businessman that comes up at all, and he is part of the AQ Khan network, and nothing to do with Iraq. There is nothing under "Somali" or "Somalia" and nothing under Benin either.

So where are these press reports coming from? In fact, they seem to be coming from the Senate Select Intelligence committee's report on what it got from the British. [Page 63 of the Senate report]. Not from the Butler report. Strange that the Butler task force - which had the benefit of seeing the Senate report before it issued its findings - made no mention of these supposed British sources.

Undoubtedly, more later.

Posted by Laura at July 14, 2004 06:26 PM