Ford, who died Tuesday, was a very good football player. In 1932 and 1933, his Wolverines went undefeated. In 1934, he was the team MVP. In Michigan’s storied football history — no school has won more games — only five numbers have received the honor of retirement, and Ford’s #48 is one of them.

And yet the media went on to portray this great athlete as a notorious klutz.

Somehow, the only president who ever tackled a Heisman Trophy winner gained the reputation of a lubber. A man who turned down offers from the NFL in order to attend law school — at Yale, no less — became known as a blockhead.

There were reasons for this. On a visit to Austria, Ford tripped down the steps of Air Force One — to the chuckles and clicks of a press corps that, in the aftermath of Watergate, was no longer interested in protecting the image of the president. The media seemed to compensate for its prior restraint by relentlessly shining a spotlight on Ford’s every step and misstep. He fell down on skis.

Iran Is Seeking More Influence in Afghanistan

Iran is investing in Afghanistan as part of a bigger drive to spread its influence and ideas farther across the Middle East.

Iraqi Court Says Hussein Must Die Within 30 Days

No further appeals are possible for Saddam Hussein after an Iraqi appeals court upheld his death sentence.

The Bush administration has decided to propose listing the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, putting the U.S. government on record as saying that global warming could drive one of the world's most recognizable animals out of existence.

The administration's proposal -- which was described by an Interior Department official who spoke on the condition of anonymity -- stems from the fact that rising temperatures in the Arctic are shrinking the sea ice that polar bears need for hunting.

Identifying polar bears as threatened with extinction could have an enormous political and practical impact.

"We've reviewed all the available data that leads us to believe the sea ice the polar bear depends on has been receding," said the Interior official, who added that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials have concluded that polar bears could be endangered within 45 years. "Obviously, the sea ice is melting because the temperatures are warmer."

Northern latitudes are warming twice as rapidly as the rest of the globe, according to a 2004 scientific assessment...

Is the Arctic Warming? In the study, Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts , Legates reviewed the claims that global warming is causing an unnatural increase in Arctic temperatures, posing a threat to the thickness and extent of sea ice and thus to the polar bears who rely upon it. In particular, he examined assertions made in the 2004 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (hereafter, the Arctic Assessment ), an international project of the Arctic Council and the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC).

Legates finds that their claims of an impending, human-induced Arctic meltdown are not supported by the evidence. For example, the Arctic Assessment proclaimed that Arctic air temperature trends provide an early and strong indication that global warming is causing polar ice caps and glaciers to melt. However, current research suggests that coastal stations in Greenland are instead experiencing a cooling trend, and average summer air temperatures at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet have decreased at the rate of 4°F per decade since measurements began in 1987.

In addition, the Arctic Assessment ignored a relatively recent long-term analysis of records from coastal stations in Russia. Russian coastal-station records of both the extent of sea ice and the thickness of fast ice (ice fixed to the shoreline or seafloor) extending back 125 years show significant variability over 60- to 80-year periods. Moreover, the maximum air temperature reported for the 20th century was in 1938, when it was nearly 0.4°F warmer than in 2000. The Russian study concludes that actual temperature measurements do not show the increased warming predicted by computer climate models.

However, even if warming is occurring, it has happened before, as ice cores from Baffin Island and sea core sediments from the Chukchi Sea show. For example, in Alaska, the onset of a warming in 1976-1977 ended the multi-decade cold trend in the mid-20th century and simply returned temperatures to those experienced in the early 20th century. Sharp, substantial fluctuations are typical of the historic pattern of natural climate variability extending back several centuries.

Interestingly, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), an international organization that has worked for 50 years to protect endangered species, has also written on the threats posed to polar bears from global warming. However, their own research seems to undermine their fears. According to the WWF, about 20 distinct polar bear populations exist, accounting for approximately 22,000 polar bears worldwide. As (their own figures show), population patterns do not show a temperature-linked decline.

The Washington Post has a front-page story on how Rep. John Murtha uses a non-profit agency to funnel money into his favorite lobbying shops while its directors "have kept Murtha's campaigns flush with cash." The non-profit is known, appropriately enough, as PAID (Pennsylvania Association for Individuals with Disabilities). There's nothing surprising about the story (we wrote about related machinations on Murtha's part months ago), but I didn't expect to see it on the front-page of the Post.

Murtha's scam, which one Democratic-leaning watchdog group director compares to "DeLay Inc.," extends beyond the Abscam unindicted co-conspirator himself. One of the director's of PAID is a central figure in an investigation of Murtha's crony Rep. Alan Mollohan. And Speaker Pelosi, who pushed so hard for Murtha to become House Majority Leader, is also connected to the Murtha machine. Last year, Murtha reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco. Pelosi's nephew, Laurence Pelosi, was an executive of the company that owned the rights to the land.

I think it was a mistake to "try" Saddam in a court, as though there were some doubt about the murderous nature of his regime, and that doubt could somehow be resolved by a judicial proceeding. I've also been critical of the manner in which the trial has been conducted. It has dragged on much too long and has far too often served as a platform for Saddam's grandstanding.

What was always necessary was that Saddam be executed, so that Iraqis can put his regime behind them, once and for all, and so that Sunni die-hards will abandon hope of a Saddamist restoration. Imperfect though it certainly is, Iraq's elected government has every right and authority to put Saddam to death. The execution, in my view, can't come too soon.

Some Saddam loyalists threatened to retaliate if he is executed, warning in a posting on the same Web site that they would target U.S. interests.

"The Baath and the resistance are determined to retaliate, with all means and everywhere, to harm America and its interests if it commits this crime," the statement said, referring to Baath fighters as "the resistance."

Hollywood Hates Obama? Juan Williams on Fox:

The question now is does Obama have any hope of raising money? I don't think he'll raise it out of the New York people, I don't think he's going to raise it out the Hollywood people, so where's the money going to come from for Barack Obama? [E.A.]

That's right, a charismatic black Iraq war opponent has no appeal out here! As always, the entertainment community demands more policy details! ... P.S.: Hello? Juan? You're making Lawrence O'Donnell look like Edgar Cayce! "Hollywood people" will obviously swoon for Obama at least as easily as any other Democratic constituency. ... P.P.S.: Remember when Joe Lieberman was briefly said to be through, after his primary loss, because he wasn't going to be able to raise money?

kf's First Law of Journalism, Rigorously Applied: If, as Lawrence Kudlow claims, "the Fed has vanquished inflation," why do all the fancy restaurants that used to cost $75 for two now routinely top $100? When the rich-who-are-getting-richer bid up prices, doesn't that count? Just asking. ... P.S.: The food I've gotten for $100 seemed to taste better than the old $75 food. Maybe the statisticians take that into account. ... Update: Alert reader G.J. suggests fancy restaurants are simply victims of Baumol's Disease--they're a labor intensive business that's seen few gains in productivity. But in the rest of the economy productivity improvements could still be driving down prices. Good point.

No one's arguing that the lacrosse team deserves a citizenship award for having a drinking party and hiring strippers. But there's a universe of difference between jocks acting boorishly and brutes gang-raping a helpless woman.

Weary and Alone, Bush Still Playing to Win in Iraq - David Ignatius, Washington Post