I recently observed that the L.A. Times article on the compromise on detainees between Bush and the Gang of Four seemed quite lonely in its view that Bush had caved. That article was titled “Bush Bows to Senators on Detainees” and opened with the claim that “President Bush acceded to dissident Senate Republicans on Thursday,” saying that Bush had made a “major concession” to McCain et al. I observed that, as readers of blogs knew, practically everyone on Earth thought that McCain and company had caved to Bush, and not the other way around.

In my post, I said:

I wonder if the L.A. Times will have occasion in coming days to revisit its view of the compromise as Bush “bow[ing] to,” “acced[ing] to,” and making a “major concession” to the McCain crew.

Because that view seems to be rather . . . unique.

Today Julian E. Barnes and Richard Simon, the authors of the “Bush Bows to Senators” article, have another article titled Defense Lawyers Assail Legislation on Detainees, which says:

Military defense lawyers assailed compromise legislation for interrogating and prosecuting terrorism suspects, contending Friday that proposed rules would prevent them from learning whether evidence used against their clients was obtained through coercion or torture.

At the same time, rights groups that initially endorsed the compromise between the Bush administration and key Senate Republicans expressed reservations, saying it appeared on closer reading to be vague and could give President Bush and future presidents too much latitude.

I’m feeling kind of prescient right about now. Hey, I can foretell your future as well . . . for a small fee.

P.S. It isn’t really all the Times reporters’ fault. It just so happens that in the first article, they made the mistake of turning to the group “Human Rights First” for a quote. That group, which evidently spouted off before reading the terms of the agreement, is about the only group on the planet that thought Bush lost on the compromise. The Times just needs to get better sources . . . like blogs, for instance.

The head of Ansar al Sunnah (the second worst terror organization in Iraq) has been captured. Rusty has the details.

I don’t know, but Ace seems to think so. He’s got fireworks going and everything.

Here is why he thinks so:

PARIS (AP) – The head of terrorist network al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, has died, according to information from the Saudi police, transmitted by the Directorate-General of External Services (DGSE), and reported on the Lorraine daily newspaper L’Est republicain in its Saturday edition.

“According to a commonly reliable source, the Saudi police believes that Osama Bin Laden has died,” said a September 21st confidential note from the DGSE classified as “defense.” L’Est republicain will publish it in its Saturday edition. The note, specified the daily newspaper, would be re-printed “un-edited.”

According to the note to be published by the L’Est republicain, the Saudi police “would try to obtain more details, in particular the location of the burial site, and then announce the news officially.” The DGSE specified in the note that no “jihadist Internet site has for the moment been made aware of the death of Osama bin Laden.”

According to the note, “the head of al Qaeda may have fallen victim to a strong case of typhoid fever while in Pakistan, on August 23, 2006,” and may have died within a matter of days.

The French news organization transmitted this note to the President of France, to the Defense and Prime Minister and the Ministers of the Interior Department on September 21, according to the regional daily newspaper, which added that a prior note transmitted on September 19th to the leaders of France explained why the Saudi police “sought to confirm the death of Osama bin Laden.”

That’s a Free Republic link — apparently a translation of an AP France story.

Can’t be an October surprise. It’s still September.

Well, it’s a completely unsubstantiated story. We’ll see what the morning brings. It sure would be nice.

(H/t See Dubya.)

UPDATE: See Dubya notes that this isn’t even on Drudge yet. While the Man with the Fedora snoozes away, some of us bloggers are hard at work bringing you news of unsubstantiated rumors.

OK, I gotta go to bed now.

UPDATE x2: I lied. It’s 2:13 a.m. and I’m watching Fox News Channel. They’re not saying a word about this.

Google News and the wires have nothing. This is just weird.

UPDATE x3 2:18 a.m.: Via See Dub, Reuters has the story here. Nothing new, but the lede makes it clear how shaky this is:

A French regional newspaper quoted a French secret service report on Saturday as saying that Saudi Arabia is convinced that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden died of typhoid in Pakistan last month.

Now I really am going to bed.

UPDATE x4: Mary Katherine Ham has a big roundup. She puts a lot of faith in whether Drudge is running it as his lead story, which gives too much credence to the Man in the Hat for my taste. Pakistani and Saudi authorities sound skeptical. The U.S. Government is not saying much, but this seems to throw cold water on the story:

U.S. officials have suggested that his death would be accompanied by a surge of e-mail and telephone chatter among bereaved al Qaeda members, if not an actual announcement from the militant network.

But officials said they were not aware of any such chatter in recent weeks.

Stay tuned. Gateway Pundit has another roundup.

UPDATE x5: Captain Ed is skeptical. So is Hinderaker. As I think we all should be.

Brits are content to give up sex if they can live to be 100.

Me, I’ll just die at 99.