The article in the Guardian in the post below turns out to be completely crap. Ace of Spades links a story where the International Red Cross "clarifies" their position on Saddam Hussein. In short, they aren't saying that Hussein must be freed or charged.

Today I was listening to Don Imus on the radio, and while talking to Mike Wallace, he said he had read something in the New York Times, and then said something like "well, who knows what that means anymore."

Reminded of how Mike Wallace and 60 Minutes used to be a feared and respected news insitution. And now they are simply another source of partisan hackery.

The Guardian is lying? Drudge's front page links a story that says the Red Cross says that the US must charge or release Hussein. Dunno how much of the rest of the story is false, but this part certainly is:

Saddam and other senior officials of the old regime are the only Iraqi detainees to have been given PoW status. Hundreds of other Iraqis have been seized since the war often, according to critics, on flimsy suspicion and held for long periods without charge, usually without their families knowing for weeks where they are.

It is categorically untrue that Saddam and other senior officials of the old regime are the only Iraqi detainees to get PoW status. Thousands of Iraqis were detained as POWs. Just read here:

Those now in CENTCOM hands include former deputy prime minister Tarik Aziz, described by Rumsfeld as a Saddam Hussein "confidante;" former chief of the Iraqi Intelligence Service's American desk Salim Sa'id Khalaf al-Jumayli; former Iraqi Air Defense Force Commander Mazahim Sa'b Hassan al-Tikriti; former director of Iraq's Military Intelligence Zuhayr Talib Abd al-Sattar al-Naqib; former Iraqi Minister of Trade Muhammad Mahdi al-Sallih; former Deputy Chief of Tribal Affairs Jamal Mustafa Abdallah Sultan al-Tikriti; and Iraq's former ambassador to Tunisia, Farouq Hijazi.

Among POWs , Rumsfeld said more than 1,000 Iraqis who fall into the category of foot soldiers have been released. The secretary said some 100 Iraqi POWs a day are being moved out of various facilities that have held -- at their peak -- 7,000 to 7,500 Iraqi POWs and foreign nationals who were fighting in Iraq as mercenaries.

I wasn't going to post anything more on President Reagan, figuring it was done, now. But in the Style section of today's Washington Post, an article about a party at a bar in DC that wasn't celebrating Ronald Reagan's life, but rather his death. A bunch of thirty-somethings (my contemporaries) getting together to toast the death of Reagan, and moan about all the injustices of the world.

It's really sad, actually. Especially this part:

Eddie Becker, 54, who works with the D.C. Independent Media Center, brought what he thought was the perfect entertainment for the afternoon: Old videotapes of documentaries about the Sandinista revolution and the ensuing saga of the contra rebels.

Those poor, downtrodden Sandanistas! Independent Media Center? You mean like Indymedia.com? Well, let the record show, those guys know how to party!

At any rate, I can't imagine that 20 years in the future that even the most dedicated Clinton-haters will get together to celebrate. I suppose its possible, but I don't see it. Plus who would want to rejoice in the music of the 90's anyway? Perhaps that is yet another part of Reagan's enduring legacy - people still care enough to get at least a little worked up about him. Twenty years from now, I don't think anyone will care about what President Clinton did.

Powerline blog has an interesting take on the Reagan funeral:

The spectacle: What would I make of it if I were a terrorist? Or, perhaps, a Frenchman? Don't screw with these people, I think is the lesson. We can bring more power and coordination to bear on a funeral than they can bring to a war. They think we are divided; they think we are weak. How many times will this happen? Why is it that America, like Ronald Reagan, like George W. Bush--and like George Washington, and Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower, and like countless millions of young men and women from small towns all across North America, who never meant to be soldiers but who stormed beaches, scaled cliffs, shot their opponents out of the air, captured cities, overthrew dictators, freed peoples--is so persistently underestimated? I don't know. But if I were an enemy and saw today's ceremonies, I would think twice.

A quintessential American attribute is our ability to laugh at ourselves. And so, an Iraqi twist on an old joke:

Why did the Iraqi chicken cross the road?

CPA
The fact that the chicken crossed the road shows that decision making authority has switched to the chicken. From now on the chicken is responsible for its own decisions.

Halliburton
We were asked to help the chicken cross the road. Given the inherent risk of road crossing, and the rarity of chickens, this operation will only cost $326,004.

Muqtada al-Sadr
The chicken was a tool of the evil Coalition and will be killed.

US Army Military Police
We were directed to prepare the chicken to cross the road. As part of these preparations, individual soldiers ran over the chicken repeatedly, and plucked the chicken. We deeply regret the occurrence of any chicken rights violations.

Peshmerga
The chicken crossed the road, and will continue to cross the road, to show its independence and to transport the weapons it needs to defend itself. However, in future, to avoid problems, the chicken will be called a duck, and will wear a plastic bill.

1st Cav
The chicken had no right to cross the road as it did not have the correct identification. Thus, the chicken was searched and detained. We apologize for any embarrassment to the chicken.

Al Jazeera
The chicken was forced to cross the road multiple times at gunpoint by a large group of occupation soldiers, according to witnesses. The chicken was then fired upon intentionally, in yet another example of the abuse of innocent Iraqi chickens.

Blackwater
We cannot confirm any involvement in the chicken-road-crossing incident.

Translators
Chicken he corss street because bad she tangle regulation. Future chicken table against my request.

US State Department
The chicken was one of our contingent which earlier flew to Kuwait or Jordan along with the UN because of the security situation. Now that we are taking over from CPA, we assure everyone that the chicken will re-cross the road once the Iraqis accept sovereignty, the UN returns, and the security situation improves on July 1st.

One would think that this is news, but nothing so far in the "news." Spotted over at Ace of Spades, the UN is saying Saddam shipped missile and WMD materials out of Iraq just prior to the war. The UN? You mean those guys who said Saddam didn't have that stuff to begin with? Go over to Ace's and read up.

I watched Dr. Strangelove for the first time all the way through. There is a point where the Soviet ambassador is telling about the production of the Doomsday device, and the reason for developing it. The Soviet Union was sure that the US had developed such a thing. And he knew it because, as he says, "My source is the New York Times."

Dr. Strangelove was made in 1963.

I have read and heard that you are not going to propose a replacement for Director Tenet at the CIA before the election due to a desire to avoid a Senate fight over the nomination. As I have read and heard this in the news, it is as likely as not that it just isn't true. However, if it is true, I hope that you will change your mind.

First of all, the DCI is an important position. Sure, no individual will make the difference, and there will be an "acting" person in the chair, but it is very important that a real director be there for many real reasons as well as symbolic reasons. With much of the War on Terror being conducted in the shadows, the CIA needs to be led by a person who is really in charge of it. An "acting" person won't have as much juice to get things done. And as a major player in the war, the Agency needs all the juice it can get.

If it is true that you are not going to propose a replacement before the election, then it is you playing politics with this. Not to mention that it is is risky to do this. If you lose the election (the polls, if you believe them, show this is a possibility depending on what day it is), you won't get anything through the Senate afterward, so it will be that much longer until the country has a DCI, and the choice will be that of John Kerry, not you.

And if we must consider the politics of it, then nominating a new DCI is a winner on that front, too. First of all, by not nominating one because of a predicted response, you are ceding the initiative to the other guys. You have won a stunning victory in the UN, where the world has signed on to the US and UK vision of a transition. Stay on the offensive politically, too. Nominate, and then the Democrats will be the ones playing politics. Make John Kerry take a stand one way or the other on the new DCI. If he agrees with your choice, great. If he opposes your choice, a difference to campaign on.

I've made my preference known - I would like to see Rudy Giuliani in the position. Certainly he would be a boost politically, and he would do a great job. But even if he isn't your choice, someone should be.

This isn't advice - I'm sure you have many people expert on politics to advise you. This is a request, from a citizen. Nominate a new DCI. We can't afford not to have one.

The UN, including our buddies France and Germany, unanimously approved the transition plan for Iraq. So that should mean everyone is happy now, right?

To the right number of US troops in South Korea. We are taking a third out by the end of next year. To quote Michael Ledeen, faster please!

President Reagan travelled in the official black presidential limo for official events. But it seemed whenever he was leaving for a vacation, he got into a yellow Lincoln. I always that was cool.

Plebes (freshmen) at West Point must learn all sorts of information about which they are drilled each day by upperclassmen. Some is arcane knowledge about West Point, some is information about the Army itself, some is important like what is for lunch, and current events, as represented by what was reported on the front page of the New York Times. Each day I had to read the front page of that paper, and be able to discuss the articles deeper than just the headlines.

I had learned of the newspaper as a reference source in high school - if it was in the paper, it was so. Sure, there was an opinon page (aside: I have always been interested in political cartoons. One of the first I remember was from 1976, a cartoon of a donkey wearing a huge smile. It was the day after Jimmy Carter had wrapped up the Democratic nomination. Noone remembers his smile, do they?), but the newspaper had, well, news in it.

The NYT provided me with a quick lesson in the reality of the "news" business. I remember one story specifically that made me realize, you know, the headline says one thing, but the story says another. This story is slanted, and it is on the front page of the paper of record!

I may not have the numbers exactly right 20 years later, but the headline was Reagan Slashes $70M from the Arts. Reading the story, though, it wasn't true. The NEA budget had been $60M, and the Democratic Congress wanted to more than triple that to $185M. The administration proposed to increase the budget to $115M. This was almost double the prior budget, but the NYT portrayed that as a "Slash." I haven't trusted the papers - especially the New York Times - since.

So I find the articles and stories about President Reagan being someone everyone in the country supported to be, well, slanted, too. He was vilified by the press and the Left - there was no spirit of bipartisan comity back then. Odd to hear John Kerry talk about how admirable President Reagan's lack of partisanship was laudable, when Kerry was one of the Democratic partisans who constantly attacked President Reagan and his policies, preferring the Communist Sandanistas (I know, we are supposed to forget about Communism being bad these days, but it was. Some of us don't forget.) to the elected government of Violetta Chamorro.

Still, I saw on some news program that while President Reagan left office with a 57% approval rating, 73% today say they approved of him. Some of that is probably sympathy at his death, but some of that is that people want to be associated with success. What Reagan did was good - defeating the Soviet Union, making the US respect itself again - so I must have supported it, right?

At least the blogosphere is honest - there are plenty of former Reagan haters out there who own up to it - and admit they were wrong. Or admit that they still hate him. Either way, at least it's honest. Unlike the New York Times.