al-Sadr gone?

When the news first came on earlier, I almost thought he was deceased. But, no. It was news he had fled to Tehran. I stress the term fled, because that is the point the news is trying to run with now. He had a growing number of troop coming in, and a new focus on him. Not to mention warnings, and tip offs to what would be coming. So if their was a legit threat to President Bush, would we say he fled? No, we'd put it more strategically, more diplomatically.

But, word is, he's gone for weeks now. Much to the surprise of Ware of CNN. No sign he left, his offices act as if he is still there. Maybe to divert notice, but he is out of range, so why keep it up?

AMERICAblog has a paranoid idea:

This makes al-Sadr look like a wimp, I mean, the guy fled in fear from us.

This also makes Iran look like they're harboring terrorists or insurgents or whatever the word du jour is for "bad guys," and that helps bolster Bush's case for war against Iran (I mean, they're helping the enemy!). So it's a win-win for us.

In order to prove he's not a wimp, al-Sadr is forced to stick his head up and say "I didn't run" - then we get a clue as to where he really is, and maybe our forces can catch him. And if al-Sadr doesn't stick his head up, we still get to tag him with the "wimp" label.

In order to not give the US more cause to attack Iran, Iran is spurred to help us find al-Sadr in Iraq, to prove that he's not in Iran, or Iran is spurred to turn him over to us, if he really is in Iran. And if Iran doesn't help prove that al-Sadr is not in Iran, we still get to claim Iran is helping the bad guys and it buildds Bush's case for war with Iran.

Perhaps al-Sadr really is in Iran, and perhaps the Bush administration is telling us the truth. But considering that Bush and the Pentagon anonymous briefers have yet to tell us the truth about much of anything to do with Iraq or Iran, I'm going to wager that we're being lied to, yet again.

Paranoid...but would it be the first time the Administration has pulled this?