Again, you'll have to show me some articles/documents more recent than 2004 to convince me of that (preferably from someone more credible than the WashTimes and MEIB).

…and that’s where he ran when the heat got too much after the successful surge was underway.

The only person claiming that he went there then was an unnamed "senior U.S. official" who "said Tuesday the firebrand Shiite militia leader had left Iraq some weeks ago for neighboring Iran and is believed to be in Tehran, where he has family. But aides to al-Sadr told Reuters today that he remained in Iraq."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld…
Great intel– sounds more like rumor, if not downright disinformation. If they have someone close to him, why didn't they even know what city he went to? Never mind whether he was there to talk to purely religious figures (as in the Shi'ite shrine-city of Qom) or his family (as suggested by the USG source). In any case, there was no suggestion in the original reporting that he went there to talk to anyone in the Iranian gov't, as you seem to be implying. Why do you dismiss out of hand denials from those in the Sadr camp? He and his father made much hay slagging those Iraqi Shi'ites like SIIC's al-Hakim) who demonstrably fled to Iran when Saddam was in power. His father was killed by Saddam's people because he stayed defiant (and stayed put). So while I admit it was possible, you must admit it wasn't likely (or necessarily damning since there was no gov't connection).

I’m rooting against every side that Iran is backing, no matter who they’re fighting.

The basic problem with your position is summed up well in this Congressional report on Iranian influence in Iraq:

Iran’s leaders and diplomats have sought to persuade all Iraqi Shiite Islamist factions in Iraq to work together through the U.S.-orchestrated political process, because the sheer number of Shiites in Iraq (about 60% of the population) virtually ensures Shiite predominance of government. To this extent, Iran’s orientation in Iraq differs little from the main emphasis of U.S. policy in Iraq, which has been to set up a democratic process that reflects majority preferences.

http://vienna.usembassy.gov/en/download/pdf/iran_…

"Would you not agree that this is yet another sign of political progress, though?"

I wish I could, but political progress happens in Parliament, or doesn't, as the case may be.

Bad news articles on those fronts today:

Iraqis Wasting An Opportunity, U.S. Officers Say
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti…
Al-Maliki Lashes Out at Sunni Leader
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oYeFwuWKC…

File this episode under Continuing Security Operations. It took 3000 Iraqi soldiers/police + hundreds of US/allied troops to pick up 39 wayward Sadrist fighters + 4 leaders? Does that strike anyone else as not terribly efficient? Politically, Sadr will be a part of the equation for the foreseeable future. He has a sizable bloc of MP's in Parliament + a few Cabinet positions. He kind of has al-Maliki by the b*lls in the ruling Shi'ite UIA bloc.

I remain somewhat skeptical. It is possible we are doing Sadr a favor by eliminating the elements he cannot control. He might end up stronger without having to do the dirty work that would hurt his popularity. The good news is that Sadr is much more willing to cooperate with the Sunnis than his rivals (he has no choice). So maybe it's not such a bad thing.

On another note, you have put up with my snarkiness (as Tom, Tom1, and fostert) for quite a while now (graciously, I would add). So I am now offering you, Jimmie, the ability to give me taste of my medicine. I will be traveling in India soon, and I set up a blog to talk about it.

You can check it out at: http://tomonroad.blogspot.com/

You'll also note that I linked to your site. Just doing what I can to get your site the exposure it deserves.

And I'm not rooting for the Badr side either. In fact, I'm rooting against every side that Iran is backing, no matter who they're fighting. Nevertheless, it is true that Mookie's ties to Iran are quite strong. That's where he's gone several times for mroe training and more money and that's where he ran when the heat got too much after the successful surge was underway.

Would you not agree that this is yet another sign of political progress, though?

Here's a couple clips from articles about this same op, one emphasizing my above point and another that gets to the issue of financing (hint: it's not Iran):

The movement of forces from Baghdad into Diwaniyah is a significant shift of resources. With the violence reduced in Baghdad, the center of gravity in the current fight, the Mahdi Army elements that refused to stop fighting have now become a high priority.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/…

Meanwhile, the head of the municipal council's security committee, Hussein al-Bideeri, told reporters that the security operation revealed armed groups' sources of finance. "Finance comes from a range of sources: heads of departments, gas stations, businessmen and contractors in the province," al-Bideeri explained.

http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article…

You have to be mindful, too, that the Iraqi army and police have simply been better infiltrated by Shi'ite fundamentalist SIIC's Badr Corps– Mookie's rival– who are perfectly proud of their having been gotten much more help from Iran. The head of SIIC (formerly SCIRI), Adbul Azziz al-Hakim somehow moves from Crawford to Tehran right under your nose. The 2 groups are fighting turf wars for control in Basra, Najaf and elsewhere. Why you're rooting for the group with obvious ties to Iran (Badr), as opposed to merely hypothetical ones (Sadr), I dunno.

The allegations in your MEIB link are just as shaky today as when it was written (2004!). If that stuff had panned out between then and now, believe me, we'd have heard about it. The second-to-last paragraph is more realistic. Attempts to tag him as pro-Iranian were likely thrown out there by his rivals to get people to think he had "sold out". He has always been a nationalist.