I don't know what you are saying?
The documents were fake. The CIA knew they were fake. The State department sent them to the IAEA even though they knew they were fake. French intelligence produced the fake documents to discredit the US and the war in Iraq.
Other evidence showed Iraq wanted to buy uranium from Niger (not the fake documents). Libya's illegal uranium came from Niger.
The press was busy telling us they were "fake" on that basis alone ~ not their content.
No one in the US was aware that they'd been artfully crafted at the time the press jumped on the story ~
Here's an example the REVERSE of what I'm saying. Remember the Dan Rather story? The documents were fake ~ they were also false. The content was not true and it was easy to prove that with no reference to any other information source than the documents themselves.
In fact, Dan Rather claimed that he believed the content to be true even if the documents had been artfully crafted. That is, with respect to the lies about "W"'s military service, your MSM accepted them as true even if their format was only a reflection of the originals.
Back to the Niger documents ~ at the time the MSM got hold of them, they did not focus on the content but on the format to claim they were "forgeries".
These guys can't have it both ways.
Still, in all cases, you gotta' have more than a "belief" that something is true, or false, to make it so!