I've been sitting on this story since it first came out, probably over a week now (I have no idea why, I just do that sometimes), but Roger L. Simon's comments on the affair make me realise I have something to contribute.

First, a bit of background: As reported in the Telegraph, Italy has been contending that France created a mixed bundle of documents, some forged, some real, with gave the impression Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Niger. France's intent, according to Italy, was apparently to dupe the UK and US into accepting the documents as real in order to later discredit them and thus derail the US/UK drive to war and protect their client, Saddam Hussein, and their considerable vested economic interest in the continuation of his plastic-shredder-enforced domestic policies.

Roger doesn't mention it, but what was truly reprensible about the French effort were the great lengths to which she went to create what the article calls "la grande trappola": The French government itself, who effectively controls uranium minining in Niger, assured the US and UK governments, behind the scenes, that the story was in fact true, and that they had direct evidence of such.

According to the scenario laid out in the article, when Bush or Blair assured skeptics they had a reliable "third source" -- that third source was France itself, creator of the forged documents.

The Age:

The Americans were now convinced by the French that Saddam really was trying to buy uranium. They thought the French must be right, since not even a gram of uranium in Niger could be shifted without their knowledge."

Needless to say, that kind of backstabbing is evil and reprehensible.

And, if the story is true, so very like the French government.

Anyway, here's Roger's take on the matter:

How does this relate to Wilson whose mission was to investigate yellowcake in Niger? I'm not sure. I don't have the facilities to investigate, but I'd wager there are plenty of dots to connect, a great story for the mainstream media - a tale of subterfuge worthy of the early LeCarré, with plenty of buried bodies to unearth. If I were an editor, I'd assign it. But then what do I know? I'm only a blogger.

Well, me too. But here's a few points for the reader to dwell on, if we assume, for the moment, the Telegraph story is true:

(1) The documents were forged to deceive, but as such provide no evidence as to whether Saddam was or was not actually trying to buy yellowcake from Niger. To the contrary, it seems to have been a valid concern (emphasis added):

"Giacomo" was allegedly first engaged by the French secret service to investigate genuine fears of illicit trafficking in uranium from Niger. He collected a dossier of documents - some real, some forged by a diplomat - by offering large sums of money to Niger officials.

A guy can forge a parking ticket. Does that prove parking violations aren't occuring?

(2) Some documents were real, while some were fake. Were the real documents totally bereft of evidence of trafficking? I would suspect so, but the point remains to be explored.

(3) Whatever the "ground truth" may have been, it may still be fair to criticise the way that Wilson arrived at whatever conclusion he deduced. It's valid to suggest that sitting down to tea with petty third-world bureaucrats and asking, "Say, any of you good fellows doing a bit of business in yellow cake? Hear any of that going on?" might not be the penultimate technique for intelligence investigation.

Even assuming Wilson was correct, it doesn't necessarily mean it was for the right reason: An airport security guard may decide a particular person is unarmed on the grounds that he feels all such people are unarmed. He may be right in a particular case, but not for the right reasons.

So the long and short of this is that this doesn't say anything definitive about the status of illict uranium buys in and around Niger, nor Wilson's competence nor honesty.

But it does give us a clue as to the motivations of those currently in power in France -- and now, apparently, the EU -- and what's important (money, power), and what's not (fidelity to allies, integrity, Iraqi torture), and how wise it is (John Kerry, mes amis liberal) to "trust" these people in the future.