Is Europe Really All That Angry?

I'm just wondering: Do Europeans really busy their brains being angry at America over detention of bad guys on their enlightened shores?

Do their red, raw nerves make it difficult for them to butter their cruppers? Is their seething over where al Qaeda murderers are held tightening the psyche of the continent into a communal spasm of revulsion?

To read Reuter's report on Rice's wildly successful trip to Europe, you'd think so.

• We learn that "Rice aimed to defuse anger that has raged across the continent" since news of the prisons broke. Sounds like every breathing soul is mad at us.
  
• Good news: Rice "won a reprieve from European governments over the U.S. treatment of detainees..." Phew. I had no idea execution was so near.
  
• Uh-oh: "...but public pressure is unlikely to ease over allegations of secret CIA jails." The public (all of 'em? three of 'em?) is still angry.
• The difficulty of her mission is clear: "Rice was essentially asking Europeans to trust her. She did so in a region of widespread anti-American sentiment where the superpower has a credibility problem." And France and Germany don't, after all the oil-for-food and Arab bomb news is out?
  
• And why did Rice get the governments to back off? Because she convinced them that America is a good country? Not according to Reuters. No it was because European governments wanted to avoid "digging too deeply into accusations that could expose their own tactics against militants." Were those angry accusations? Were they raging across the continent?

Reuters cites no polls and talks to no regular Joes in its story. Instead, it mentions prosecuters (i.e., political grandstanders), human rights advocates (probably funded by Soros) and diplomats to prove its point that Europe is about to boil over with anti-Americanism.

In the end, I'm left to conclude that things are probably just fine for the US in the Old Country. More and more, it's getting to the point where if Reuters says it's green, I'll say it's red.