It would be bad enough if this asshole simply did what he did.

But to add fuel to the fire The New York Times has to have this kind of asinine "news analysis." Let me ask you, do the ebullient headline and first paragraphs (the first sentence reads "President Bush’s decision to commute the sentence of I. Lewis Libby Jr. was the act of a liberated man..."), which make the president seem to be a stoic and decisive character, sound AT ALL like what comes way down the page in paragraph 11:

Mr. Bush comes at the decision a weakened leader, with his public approval ratings at historic lows for any president, his domestic agenda faltering on Capitol Hill and his aides facing subpoenas from the Democrats who control Congress. Those circumstances offer him a certain amount of freedom; as Mr. Black said, “He knows he’s going to get hammered no matter what he does.”

That paragraph is the portrait of a defeated lame-duck president. Shouldn't that be the first sentence of this "news analysis"? So why oh why the purposefully misleading headline:
FOR BUSH, ACTION IN LIBBY CASE A TEST OF WILL??? (Clearly the "reporter" thinks Bush has passed the test). When of course we all know it's supposed to read:
FOR BUSH, ACTION IN LIBBY CASE AN ACT OF WILLFULNESS. Why is this lame analysis being offered by the New York Fucking Times?!?!!?!

Will somebody please give this asshat a blowjob so we can impeach him already? (Sorry, I'm a conscientious objector). Shit. Like Rufus, I'm so tired of America.

And on top of everything else, Beverly Sills has died. I hope she gets above-the-fold treatment in tomorrow's Times. She's not just a great soprano and internationally celebrated personality, she's a bit of the old New York which is evaporating evermore quickly from the world and even, I fear, from our memories. Rest in peace, Bubbles.