Reply #6: I liked esp the summary - and the suggested alt wording for the SOTU

[papau]

The summary: "So far, we've known that the Niger-uranium claim was based on (a) forged documents, (b) an Italian summary of the forged documents, (c) a French analysis of the forged documents, and (d) UK intelligence's conviction that the claim was true. The UK was, in turn, basing its analysis on (a) forged documents, and (b) a mysterious second source. Today, via Laura Rozen the Guardian reports that the second UK source "almost certainly" came from France. Does that mean the second source was really the same forgery passed around again through a different route? Hard to say. It would be nice to hear from UK intelligence why, if Iraq tried to get the yellowcake, it didn't succeed in getting the yellowcake. Assuming the attempt was made, knowing why it failed is pretty crucial to knowing what to think about it. "

and the suggested alternative SOTU wording: "The British believe, although the CIA does not, that Iraqi recently sought uranium from Africa. There is no evidence that any transaction ever took place, and it wouldn't make sense anyway because Saddam couldn't use it, already had plenty, and would have taken several years to ramp up enrichment. Therefore, there is no rush."

sigh -

but a nice summary of a Iraq amb statement to Niger that they would like to increase commercial ties being made into what the Niger informant described as an "unspoken" question about yellow cake.