al-Sadr in Iran? Maybe, maybe not.

I smell convenient misinformation campaign. Here's how the US hopes it plays out:

1. US claims to have intelligence, that they don't show anyone, supposedly "proving" that al-Sadr is in Iran.

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

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.