Did they or didn't they?

A little reminder of just how complex things are in Iraq and just how ill-suited our blunderbuss approach is.

From Reuters for February 5:

Iraq's most powerful Shi'ite cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has survived an assassination bid when gunmen opened fire on his entourage in the sacred streets of Najaf, a security aide says.

Sistani, revered by Iraq's Shi'ite community, which makes up about 60 percent of the country's 25 million population, is rarely seen in public and seldom leaves Najaf, Shi'ism holiest city....

An attempt on the 73-year-old cleric's life is likely to incite fury among Iraq's long-oppressed Shi'ite community as it seeks greater influence in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.

And this is from the BBC, later the same day:

Supporters of the spiritual leader of Iraq's Shia Muslims, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, have denied reports that he has been the target of an attack.

One of his aides dismissed the reports as untrue.

The question is, are the reports being denied because they are in fact untrue - in which case who circulated them and why - or because Sistani, widely regarded as a moderate among Shiite clerics, is aware of and wants to avoid the "fury" such an attack could generate?

The fact that, in the absence of more information, a good argument could be made for either scenario shows how volatile conditions are.