Last things first -- it was not "the press exagerrating the situation" -- it was the press reporting what the government said about the situation.
If you don't like the fact that the government compared the current situation with the Cuban missile crisis, then you should take it up with the government. Attacking Fox News for reporting it is a classic case of "shooting the mesenger."
Next, you misapply the meaning of the statement when you say:
I can't see any scenario in which possible actions by the Taliban or their fundamentalist Muslim followers which could lead to an all out exchange of nuclear weapons on a global scale by super powers ..... and that is what was at stake in the Cuban Missle Crisis.
The government -- that's the US government -- said that "we have not seen such a serious threat since the Cuban missile crisis". [emphasis mine]
Please note that they did not say that "the world has not seen such a serious threat since the Cuban missile crisis".
OK? Get it? The message is that the United States faces something as threatening as the the United States faced in 1962. (It said nothing at all about the world facing any such threat.)
So, exactly what did the United States face back then?
It faced a number of medium range ballistic missiles with large nuclear payloads, which were capable of striking approximately fifty percent of the continental US landmass.
Now take a deep breath, and ask yourself if "any scenario in which possible actions by the Taliban or their fundamentalist Muslim followers which could lead to" something on that scale is something to take seriously, or something to shrug off as we go about our patriotic duty to shop for new cars.
Before you let out that deep breath, you should take a moment to contemplate something very curious about the latest government statement. This is the first time that we've been hit with something that runs counter to the "no big deal, go shopping, buy a car" nonsense.
If you still can't see that the government is taking this very seriously, and telling us that we should take it seriously too, then perhaps you shouldn't waste your time thinking about it. Instead, just go shopping, buy a car.
If anyone needs to take a deep breath, it is you my friend. .... you might try re-reading my post, particularly the part about not trivializing the current crisis. IMO, there is absolutely no value or benefit to over hyping the current real danger ..... particularly because there is NOTHING constructive about merely restating that we are in danger.
The feelings of helplessness underlying your near hysteria is surely gratifying to the terrs ......
That's one interpretation, but keep in mind that "since" is usually used in situations that mean, "it's not as big as the event I'm comparing it to, but it's as big as anything that occurred after that up until the current time."
For example, if the Indianapolis 500 had 25 crashes in 1985 (I'm just making up these numbers), and no Indy 500 had more than 10 crashes since then, a newscaster describing this year's Indy 500 with 12 crashes would describe it as "the most crash-ridden Indy 500 since 1985", despite the fact that it didn't come close to the 1985 total.
So the question is not, "what would equal the Cuban Missile Crisis", the question is, "what would equal any threat that has happened since"?
Given that the years since the Cuban Missile Crisis have been mostly safe and calm ones, I don't know if that quote should be taken as direly as people have interpreted it.
And not even 9/11 may have been meant to be included in the comparison, since that wasn't a "threat", it was a "done deal" without any preceding threat whatsoever.
No, it was the press reporting what ONE PERSON in the government said about the situation. For all we know, he might have been one of the Chicken Little types, and/or someone who doesn't have the whole picture anyway and is jumping to conclusions based on what little he does know.
I wouldn't get too concerned about that statement until an official government statement is released with such a phrase, because then it *would* be a policy statement (e.g., one arrived at by consensus), and one which was backed by full knowledge of the situation.
I think it's irresponsible for Fox to report such an inflammatory statement without sourcing it. Small bits of information are okay to air with nothing more than "our sources tell us", but for something that provocative of the public's concern, they should hold off until they can report it with an attribution, or at least a clear statement of why it should be taken as gospel. This is *not* the time for rumor-mongering.