According to the wacky theory discussed here, "Saddam is alive but no longer in Iraq and our Government knows it."

First of all, consider the source, one of which is a leftie blog I won't name and the other of which is none other than the 100% reliable DebkaFile.

Let's say SH is gone. If we know it, why won't we release that information? Did we help him get out of the country and agreed to keep it a secret? Or, did we not help, but we've decided to keep it a secret for our own goals?

If the former, would we have agreed to such a plan? And, what of the wacky Iraqi leadership still in Iraq? Certainly they would know if SH is gone: there must be some means of communication directly between SH and the upper levels of Baghdad. If they know he's gone, are they holding on expecting to be victorious? Are they fearful of letting news out about SH's disappearnce to maintain control? That's at least somewhat plausible. If they could somehow win the war or keep territory, they could keep SH "alive" indefinitely using the doubles and recycled video. But, they have to realize, even as delusional as they appear to be, that it wouldn't work out. Why haven't they followed SH's lead and fled themselves? If SH is gone, why not, for instance, try to strike a deal with S.A. to get out of the country?

If we didn't help, what reason would we have for not releasing this information? Why don't we just bomb the Syrian resort Debka mentions? Are we intending to do a special operation to kidnap him, and we don't want to tip them off and force him further underground?

While to a certain degree this wacky theory might have some plausibility, and I haven't exhausted all possibilities in the above discussion, I think it's best to just consider the sources.