Reply #27: or to the guy who wrote the headline, anyway

[0rganism]

I happen to have a problem with it, I disagree with the premise.

Similarly, I would take issue with multiple statements you make:
> Before the 2004 election the world gave us a pass.
"The world", or at least its various constituent human participants, had their sundry issues with us long before 2004.

> Most international headlines referred to "Bush" and not "U.S."
That's possible, I suppose. Have you done any research to support this assertion? It seems like it could be a verifiable data point concerning editorial opinion abroad, but I haven't seen anything along these lines. I wouldn't want to go out on that limb without some backup.

> ...(although this (the shitheadedness of bush) wasn't a surprise to anyone who frequents DU).
I definitely skew on this one. Despite my years of frequenting DU, I have been, am, and will continue to be surprised, at least once per week, by some godawful thing that bush and his squirming minions have pulled. Shock and awe, who knew it would last 6 years? What amazes me is that my opinion of bush continues to decline as time goes on.

> After 2004 the world decided, rightly or wrongly, that by reelecting * we agreed with his actions.
Well, I didn't vote for *, and I sure as hell didn't vote to decide that by re-electing * we agreed with his actions. I consider myself part of the world, was I disenfranchised? Who got to decide for the world? Bush the Decider?

> Thereafter headlines and stories referred to "U.S." nearly exclusively.
Again, this is something that should be quantifiable as a matter of record. Do you have a URL handy that supports this assertion?

You seem to be making a comparable characterization of "the world" to that which you allege "the world" made of the US, post-2004. Do you really think such large-scale generalizations are valid?