As Opposed to What...A Catastrophe?

So, rounds one and two of Rove's October surprises are apparently the decree Sinclair Broadcasting issued to their affiliates to run an anti-Kerry, Swift Boat Loonie inspired video (Atrios has quite a bit more, including information about Sinclair's president and resident John, David D. Smith), and this drivel, reported by CNN, about how Team Bush plans to attack Kerry for declaring he wants to reduce the terrorism threat to "a nuisance." Nice.

The Bush administration has played games with the nation in regards to terrorism since 9/12/2001, and they're upset that Kerry wants to REDUCE the terror threat? What--are they upset that they won't be able to spin the color coded terror wheel of fortune? That Ashcroft won't be able to slither out of his snakehole to warn about "increased chatter?"

One thing that disappointed me during Friday's debate was Kerry's response to the question of 9/11 and why there hasn't been another attack on America--yet. Um--both candidates refer to a "global war on terror." Global as in "the whole world."
How convenient to forget the bombings in Bali and Spain. How convenient to forget the anthrax attacks right here in the United States. How convenient to forget the bombing in Egypt, the bombings in Turkey, the attacks in Russia, the bombings in Morocco, and so on. How convenient to forget the daily bombings in Baghdad.

The warmongers call for a global war on terror, yet they're fixated on two countries--Iraq and the United States. Regarding the rest of the world, they seem to have adopted a point of view best expressed in a term I found in this New Yorker article last night. The original French (yes, it's a French expression) is "Comme une vache observant un train allez près." Translated, it means "like a cow watching a train go by." The New Yorker piece uses the term describe Bush's deer-in-the-headlights look during the first debate, but it can also express the complete lack of a world view on the part of the warmongers--which kind of contradicts the concept of a "global" war. A war which isn't going all that well for the globe, by the way.

So the press corps will dutifully report on the use of "nuisance" by Kerry, and parse the term into the ground--while forgetting that the Bush plan is little more than "expect more catastrophes--hopefully outside of the US's borders," in which case the reaction will be "gee, too damn bad."

That's why, in response to another questioner from Friday's debate, the rest of the world holds a negative view towards the United States.