forgegate, disinfogate, or leakgate?

richard clarke, on fresh air yesterday to plug his new novel, pointed out that our war in iraq gave iran everything it wanted: we took out their hated enemy saddam hussein, made sure iraq has no wmd to threaten them in the future, and shifted control to the shi'a, who are likely to be friendlier to iran than any other group.

it occurs to me that much of the disinformation the dept of defense's rumsfeld, wolfowitz, and feith used to get us into iraq came from someone codenamed "curveball" whom ahmed chalabi hooked up with DoD. curveball allegedly got it from iran.

i can't help wondering if the 1993 alleged iraqi plot against bush-41 might've really been more iranian disinfo. or maybe kuwaiti, since they also had a revenge motive for a true grievance and a history of attributing hostile motives to innocuous iraqi actions.

then there's the origin of the forged 2002 "niger" documents that have since become relevant in plame/wilson/rove?/libby?/cheney? leakgate. they came thru italy, but surely they didn't start there. and who outside of a government would have access to niger letterheads and signatures of former officials?

newsweek's michael isikoff on all things considered yesterday said the UK got the papers from niger's embassy in rome. that's the first time i heard that. previous reports said an italian journalist was the conduit to the brits and refused to reveal her source. how could an embassy get fake official papers? why would it represent them to the brit govt as authentic?

is isikoff wrong? is he spreading disinfo? intentionally? what's the actual source?

let's hear what you know. and: stay tuned.