Well, at least you're upset that bin Laden still lives. It may not be 100% Bush's fault, but as the president it's his job to accept responsibility.
That "1 person out of all 513,000 elected officials" is number one on the totem pole. He's like a football QB, too much credit when things go right, too much blame when they don't, but that's the job Bush wanted.
Don't you mean you expect the news media to employ a form of self censorship? The news outlets were already way too deferential to this administration leading up to the war in Iraq. Never questioning dubious assertions, such as WMD or the real immediacy of the supposed threat Saddam posed.
The Dallas Morning News and the San Diego Tribune endorsed Bush in 2004. According to the list I got, the AJC did endorse Kerry, but endorsed Bush in 2000. The point is, that no definitive conclusions can be drawn, the print media is just dying a slow death. I personally, still enjoy reading the newspaper the old fashion way, hopefully the loss in readership will level off somewhat.
Calling the NY Times treasonous is a bit much, don't you think? This is America, first amendment and all, remember?
The NY Times loss of print subscriptions is, as previously mentioned, reflected throughout the print media world. However, visits to their website are up. Maybe there were a few right wing reactionaries who canceled their subscriptions, but, in the pursuit of truth, you can't hope to please everybody.