The unaccountable lame-duck president

We've long known that the Bush Administration is allowed to do anything it wants, and no one -- not Congress, not the press, not an American population more interested in how much Heather Mills got in her divorce from Paul McCartney -- will ever hold them to account.

But we haven't before seen a major press outlet come out and admit that they are just not going to pay attention to anything this president does because of his lame duck status.

Earlier this month, George Bush, in a video conference with military and civilian personnel in Afghanistan, said:

"I must say, I'm a little envious. If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed. It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks."

And the press ignored the fact that the commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces doesn't seem aware that war isn't a video game.

That's no surprise; we're used to the press refusing to report on anything that might reveal what a sociopath we've had occupying the White House for the past seven years. What IS a surprise is the admission by the New York Times that just as George Bush lost interest in Osama Bin Laden just six months after the September 11 attacks, saying "I truly am not that concerned about him":

...so has the New York Times decided that even though George Bush is eminently capable of dropping nuclear bombs on Iran in a final blaze of glory before leaving office, the paper is truly not that concerned about anything George W. Bush says or does:

I would argue that that this is not news. You may see this as absurd, hypocritical fantasy, and as such, if he were a new president about whom we knew little, with many years ahead of him, his words would be worth noting. But this is a lame-duck president with less than a year left in office, who I would guess has said many things that you object to equally (if not more). His statements in that conference are of no particular significance, they reflect no new policy.

The media are generally not paying a lot of attention to Bush, focusing instead on the people who are competing to succeed him.

After the last seven years, you'd think the press would be all to well aware of the kind of havoc this man can wreak while our attention is elsewhere.