Public Agenda Special Edition: Terrorism

Introduction

Overview

Bioterrorism

Public Opinion

Sources and Resources

Most Say Administration Exaggerated on WMD, Still Believe Weapons Exist

Updated February 18, 2004

Public doubts about American involvement in Iraq have continued to increase in recent weeks, with surveys finding the public split in half over whether the war was worth fighting - a substantial drop from just two months ago. A slight majority also says the Bush administration intentionally exaggerated evidence of weapons of mass destruction, but even larger majorities say the administration honestly believed the weapons were there.

Yet these doubts only go so far. Majorities continue to say the war made the U.S. safer and that it was justified even if the U.S. never finds any banned weapons. Despite the controversy over faulty U.S. intelligence, six in 10 Americans tell pollsters that they believe Iraq had illegal weapons of mass destruction.

This continues to fit a pattern of unsettled findings in survey results - a warning sign that the public has not reached firm conclusions on many questions about Iraq. The number who say the war was worth fighting has bounced up and down, reaching high points right after the victory last spring and after the capture of Saddam Hussein in December. At other points, when casualties or setbacks were in the news, surveys showed more doubts.

The public has long been convinced that Saddam Hussein is a villainous leader of a corrupt regime and that belief may explain many poll findings. On many practical, what-happens-next questions, public opinion seems much more variable. Majorities say they support the war, but majorities also say casualty levels are unacceptable and that the U.S. is spending too much. Surveys find the public reluctant to send more troops, but also willing to stay for years if necessary.

Bin Laden and Al Qaeda
With the release on Sept. 10 of a new videotape purporting to show Osama bin Laden alive, six in 10 Americans say the U.S. must capture or kill bin Laden to succeed in the war on terrorism. That figure has swung wildly in the two years since the Sept. 11 attacks. Even so, most Americans consider bin Laden's al Qaeda organization an ongoing threat. A large majority (80 percent) told Gallup on Aug. 25-26 that they believed there were al Qaeda operatives in the U.S. capable of launching attacks.

U.S. experts are analyzing the videotape's authenticity and many counterterrorism officials believe bin Laden was killed during the war in Afghanistan. The public has generally believed bin Laden was alive (70 percent in an October 2002 ABC News poll, when the last audiotape purporting to be from bin Laden surfaced).

But the focus on getting bin Laden has gone up and down since the Sept. 11 attacks. In the Sept. 7 ABC News survey, 62 percent say the U.S. must catch bin Laden to win the war on terrorism, almost as high as the 64 percent reported in November 2001. When Gallup asked on Aug. 4-6 whether capturing bin Laden or Saddam Hussein was more important, 44 percent said bin Laden, compared to 29 percent for Hussein.

But for most of last year, far fewer people thought getting bin Laden was essential. Only 44 percent said the U.S. must get bin Laden in September 2002. An August 2002 Newsweek survey found that most people didn't believe eliminating bin Laden and other leaders will also eliminate the threat from al Qaeda. Some 54 percent said removing al Qaeda's top leaders would not eliminate the threat of terrorism "because too many cells and potential leaders would remain."

The U.S. government says more than 3,000 suspected al Qaeda operatives have been arrested worldwide. Many of those suspects are being held at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay and face either military tribunals or indefinite detention by the U.S. (For public views on military tribunals, see our section on Civil Liberties). In intelligence terms, most of the detainees appear to be low-level operatives who may not know that much. Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks taken earlier this year in Pakistan, is a different matter. As a senior al Qaeda leader and a relatively recent capture, he probably knows a lot -- including what terrorist attacks are being planned. Getting him to talk could be vital. Mohammed's capture again raises the thorny question of how suspected terrorists are treated and how far the U.S. and its allies should go in fighting terrorism. Surveys show the public divided on many of the harshest tactics, including torture, that might be available.

The U.S. government says it will not torture suspects, but it reserves the right to use tactics like disorientation, discomfort and sleep deprivation as part of interrogation. The U.S. may also hand over suspects to allied countries that are known to use torture. In general, surveys have shown Americans express at least an initial willingness to trade some civil liberties for security, but officially sanctioned torture would be an unprecedented tradeoff. The very definition of torture can be up for dispute (many human rights groups consider sleep deprivation to be torture, for example).

In October 2001, less than a month after the terror attacks, Gallup found 53 percent who said they were "not willing" to let the government "torture known terrorists if they know details about future…attacks." In March 2002, Fox News found the public split on whether physical torture is acceptable to protect the U.S. from terrorist attacks, with 47 percent opposed. In both the Gallup and Fox polls, however, substantial minorities (about four in 10) were willing to make that bargain. When Fox asked those opposed to torture if they would feel the same way "if innocent lives could be saved," some 62 percent of the opponents still rejected the idea.

Gallup also found 55 percent were not willing to provide aid to governments who "deny their citizens basic freedoms" in return for help fighting terrorists. Far fewer wanted to make deals with organizations that sell drugs or that themselves are suspected of torture (71 percent said they were unwilling to give those groups aid).

The conditions at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp drew criticism in 2002 from human rights groups and European allies. The Bush administration has decided to apply Geneva Convention protections to Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan but not members of al Qaeda. Most Americans (72 percent in the Gallup poll taken Jan. 25-27, 2002) say the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo is "acceptable." Gallup also asked questions describing the treatment of a detainee who was held "outdoors in an 8 foot by 8 foot cell, and when traveling … was blindfolded and his hands bound." Three-quarters told Gallup that it would be acceptable to hold a Taliban soldier under those conditions. Half of those surveyed (49 percent) said that would also be acceptable treatment for an American soldier captured in war; 46 percent said it would be unacceptable.

The Home Front
As the nation marks the second anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, surveys find that two-thirds of the public believe the country is safer from terrorism than it was before the attacks. Yet a smaller majority (56 percent) believes the government has done "all it reasonably can" to prevent terrorism, and eight in 10 believe al Qaeda still has operatives in the U.S. Consistently, surveys have found that while the public's fear of terrorism rises and falls, views are tinged with a calculation of an individual's own risk, a tempered confidence in the government's ability to protect the public and a conviction that terrorists are ready to strike the U.S. again.

The August 25-26 Gallup poll found 54 percent who said a terrorist attack in the U.S. was likely in the next several weeks, up from 40 percent in a July 18-20 survey. That's still much lower than at the peak of public concern during the anthrax scare of October 2001, when 85 percent said terrorist attacks were likely, or at the start of the Iraq war in March 2003, when 73 percent expected attacks.

But far fewer people believe an attack would affect themselves, their family or their community. In the August 2003 Gallup poll 41 percent said they were at least somewhat worried they or a family member might become a victim (compared to 59 percent during the anthrax scare). And an overwhelming majority (85 percent) told Gallup it's "not too likely" or "not at all likely" that a terrorist act would strike their community. Of course, those results may depend on the community. Some 68 percent of New Yorkers said they were "very concerned" about another terrorist attack in the city, according to an Aug. 31-Sept. 4 New York Times survey. Half of New Yorkers say they feel personally "uneasy" about the possibility of an attack.

Many public attitudes about terrorism also seem driven by events -- rising when a warning is issued or an incident occurs and falling as time passes without an attack. That may explain the ups and downs of survey results this year. When the Iraq war began, an ABC/Washington Post survey showed the public concerned that the invasion would increase the risk of terrorism in the short term (68 percent), but nearly half also believed it could decrease terrorism in the long term. The terrorist campaign against the U.S. predicted by many during the Iraq war never materialized, and public concern fell. Since then attitudes may have shifted, possibly because of the series of high-profile car bombings in Iraq. Now slightly more people say the war with Iraq will increase the risk of terrorism (48 percent) than decrease it (40 percent), according to a Sept. 4-7 ABC News survey. Nearly half (48 percent) of registered voters say the threat of terrorism against the U.S. is "about the same" since the war, according to an Aug. 26-28 CBS News poll. Some 32 percent say the threat has increased, while 19 percent say it has decreased. (See also our section in the war in Iraq).

A strong majority, however, tell survey researchers they're convinced al Qaeda could strike again on American soil. Eighty percent told Gallup in August 2003 that there are al Qaeda terrorists currently in the U.S. who "have the resources to launch a major terrorist attack…at any time."

At the same time three-quarters told Gallup they have a "great deal" (23 percent) or a "fair amount" (53 percent) of confidence the government can protect the nation. The CBS News survey found most thought the Bush administration had made "some" (47 percent) or "a lot" (31 percent) of progress in making the country safer from terrorists. And the September ABC poll found two-thirds (67 percent) who say the country is safer than it was before Sept. 11, and 56 percent who say the government has done "all it reasonably can" to prevent more attacks. That view has held at the same level for more than a year.

Remembrance and Healing
Two years after the Sept. 11 attacks, surveys find the emotional impact still lingers with the public -- far more so than any specific day-to-day changes in how they live their lives. More than half of the public says the country is "somewhat back to normal," which is actually lower than surveys reported a year ago. A not insignificant minority admits to anxiety about the possibility of another attack, but far more seem to have taken the attacks in stride. Even in New York, where Sept. 11 can have a strong personal resonance, surveys find two-thirds say their routine is back to normal.

There are few parallels to the national outpouring of grief, anger and patriotism seen in September 2001. (To look back at the reaction in detail, see our public opinion analysis for Sept. 19, 2001.) Much was written at the time about how life would never be the same.

Two years later, almost all Americans -- 95 percent -- say the country was changed by the attacks, according to an ABC News poll. Most (56 percent) told Gallup the country is only "somewhat back to normal" while 41 percent say it isn't back to normal. That's actually a decline from March 2002, when 62 percent said the country was somewhat back to normal. More than three-quarters (78 percent) told Gallup that time had not healed the wounds of the country.

But for most people, there hasn't been a concrete change in their lives. More than two-thirds (67 percent) told ABC that Sept. 11 changed "the way you feel about things." And 53 percent of those say it was a change for the better. ABC analysts point out that it may be no coincidence the percentage saying spending time with their family is "essential" has jumped from 60 percent in October 2000 to 85 percent in their Sept. 4-7, 2003, survey.

By contrast, only about a third (35 percent) told ABC their day-to-day lives had changed and roughly as many (34 percent) say they think about the attacks "every day."

Some feelings have remained consistent since the attacks. Eighty percent told ABC they were angry at the terrorists and only 27 percent said they were "confused about who would do this and why." Another 28 percent said the possibility of a terrorist attack had caused them extra stress and anxiety. Those findings are almost identical to those from September 2002.

The trauma may touch New York City more closely, but many of the feelings are the same. A staggering two-thirds of city residents said they, a family member or one of their friends knew someone who was hurt or killed at the World Trade Center, according to a CBS/New York Times survey conducted Aug. 31-Sept. 4. Nearly as many, 62 percent, said they had personally visited Ground Zero, with 42 percent saying they'd gone more than once.

A small but not insignificant number of New Yorkers (14 percent) said they still had trouble sleeping because of the attacks while about a third say they still sometimes feel "nervous or edgy." But 67 percent said their routine had gone back to normal and 41 percent said their life hadn't changed because of the attacks. More than half (53 percent) say they're more likely to spend time with family and friends.

Civil Liberties
From the very first surveys after Sept. 11, most Americans told pollsters that the country would have to give up some rights to fight terrorism. While a majority believes the Bush administration has struck the right balance on civil liberties, the public now expresses more doubts in surveys. Two factors might be at work on this issue: time to think and an absence of new terror attacks.

For example, shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, Newsweek found 63 percent of the public said the "average person" would have to give up some civil liberties to fight terrorism (other surveys came in with even higher support). Four months later, in January 2002, Gallup found 47 percent who said the government should take "all steps necessary" to prevent terrorism, even if civil liberties were violated. By August 2003, that was down to 29 percent, with 67 percent saying the government should take steps to prevent terrorism "but not if those steps would violate your basic civil liberties."

Even so, relatively small numbers of Americans say the Bush administration has gone "too far" in restricting civil liberties (21 percent in the August 2003 Gallup poll). That's up from 11 percent in June 2002. But the number who say the government's approach has been "about right" has changed little: 55 percent said the approach has been about right in August 2003, the same percentage as Gallup found a year earlier in September 2002.

Several factors influence public thinking on this issue. On nearly every complex problem, Public Agenda has found the public needs time to think; time to weigh alternatives and consider choices. In addition, the sense of fear, rage and crisis in the fall of 2001 deeply affected the public's response. Finally, personal experience is always a potent factor in public attitudes, and few Americans have ever lived under the restrictions that worry civil libertarians. Indeed, many Americans may not be following these questions closely. Half of those surveyed for the August 2003 Gallup poll said they weren't familiar with the USA Patriot Act, the law that gave the government additional powers to pursue suspected terrorists. [For more on how public attitudes develop in a crisis, read the Seven Stages of Public Opinion and our interview with Public Agenda co-founder Daniel Yankelovich].

In the fall of 2001, surveys found the public supporting a broad range of actions, including use of profiling, indefinite detention of suspects and military tribunals. The public's attitudes on profiling have become more complex; for additional details see our section on Racial Profiling and Islam at Home.

But surveys also find that when asked what should be done to prevent terrorism, the public's strongest instincts are for measures such as metal detectors in public buildings and tighter airport security. Even immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks, Newsweek found only a third wanted increased electronic eavesdropping and even fewer supported random searches by police.

The way survey questions are worded seems to make a difference in the response -- usually a warning sign that public attitudes can change depending on events or as people learn more about an issue. When in 2002 CBS/New York Times researchers simply asked whether it's a good or bad idea to allow the government to listen in on conversations between suspected terrorists in jail and their lawyers, 72 percent thought it was a good idea. But when researchers rephrased the question to add that attorney-client conversations have always been private, only 30 percent said it was a good idea.

Immigration
Opposition to immigration has spiked since Sept. 11, with 59 percent of the public telling Gallup researchers in December 2001 that immigration should be decreased — a 20-point change from a year before. Many of the hundreds of people detained during the government's investigation of the terror attacks are being held on immigration charges. Much of the debate over homeland security has focused on gaining better control of the nation's borders.

But it isn't clear whether the public is resisting immigration in general, has become convinced that tougher immigration rules should be part of the war on terrorism, or is simply fed up with the government's longstanding failure to stem illegal immigration.

The number of foreign-born Americans is at its highest share of the population since the 1930s, but public attitudes on immigration remain complex. The romantic idea of immigrants as the real believers in America still resonates. In Public Agenda's recent survey on the Constitution, 57 percent of the public said that immigrants have a greater appreciation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights than others.

The alleged immigration violations by the detainees may provide important context to public attitudes on this issue. Historically, the public has mixed views on immigration, but usually makes a clear distinction between legal and illegal immigrants — and has little patience with immigrants who break the rules to get here. For example, six in 10 in Public Agenda's recent survey, Knowing It by Heart, said illegal immigrants should be deported immediately after being caught. Only about a third (35 percent) believed illegal immigrants should be allowed to appeal their case in a court hearing.

Similarly, when Public Agenda asked whether illegal immigrants detained during the Sept. 11 terrorist investigation should have the right to see a lawyer and face charges quickly, 58 percent said "they don't deserve such protections because they are here illegally to start with."

And surveys also find that a majority of Americans incorrectly believe that most immigrants are here illegally. (Statistics are available in our Fact File on Immigration).

Certainly the public has taken a harder line on immigration overall since Sept. 11. A May 14-15 2002 Fox News poll found 61 percent who want to make it more difficult for all foreigners to enter the country. Nearly half (48 percent) told Fox they would support stopping all immigration for two years or blocking all immigration of young Arab men (53 percent). A year after the terror attacks, the Gallup survey on Sept. 2-4 found 54 percent calling for immigration to be decreased.

Yet when an early-September 2002 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll gave people a choice between curtailing immigration overall and doing "a better job screening immigrants let into the country but not reduce the overall number," 62 percent chose better screening, compared to 36 percent for cutting overall immigration.

A more detailed examination of this topic is available in Public Agenda's issue guide on Immigration.

Most Say Administration Exaggerated on WMD, Still Believe Weapons Exist
Public doubts about American involvement in Iraq have continued to increase in recent weeks, with surveys finding the public split in half over whether the war was worth fighting - a substantial drop from just two months ago. A slight majority also says the Bush administration intentionally exaggerated evidence of weapons of mass destruction, but even larger majorities say the administration honestly believed the weapons were there.

Yet these doubts only go so far. Majorities continue to say the war made the U.S. safer and that it was justified even if the U.S. never finds any banned weapons. Despite the controversy over faulty U.S. intelligence, six in 10 Americans tell pollsters that they believe Iraq had illegal weapons of mass destruction.

This continues to fit a pattern of unsettled findings in survey results -- a warning sign that the public has not reached firm conclusions on many questions about Iraq. The number who say the war was worth fighting has bounced up and down, reaching high points right after the victory last spring and after the capture of Saddam Hussein in December. At other points, when casualties or setbacks were in the news, surveys showed more doubts.

The public has long been convinced that Saddam Hussein is a villainous leader of a corrupt regime and that belief may explain many poll findings. On many practical, what-happens-next questions, public opinion seems much more variable. Majorities say they support the war, but majorities also say casualty levels are unacceptable and that the U.S. is spending too much. Surveys find the public reluctant to send more troops, but also willing to stay for years if necessary.

The Weapons Debate

The debate over why the U.S. government said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction -- whether by mistake, exaggeration or both -- seems to have had an impact on the public. In the latest ABC/Washington Post survey, conducted Feb. 10-11, 54 percent said the Bush administration did "intentionally exaggerate" the evidence that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. And 53 percent said how the administration used the available intelligence is a more important issue than whether the intelligence was accurate or not. Nearly half (48 percent) told a Time/CNN survey on Jan. 14-15 that they believed reports that President Bush had plans to go to war with Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Yet in the same ABC/Post survey, 68 percent said the administration honestly believed Iraq had banned weapons - and 61 percent of those surveyed said they still believe Iraq had weapons that haven't been found. Newsweek found similar results in a Jan. 29-30 poll, with 55 percent saying they believed Iraq had illegal weapons, at least at the time war broke out. The Newsweek poll was conducted just after U.S. chief weapons inspector David Kay said intelligence had been wrong about Iraq's weapons program.

Still Worth It?

The public has consistently said, however, that the U.S doesn't need to find weapons of mass destruction to justify the war. In the latest ABC/Post survey, 57 percent said the war was justified even if U.S. finds no weapons in Iraq (although that figure is down from 69 percent in April 2003).

The public's low opinion of Saddam Hussein may factor into this view -- surveys through the 1990s consistently found public support for U.S. action to remove Hussein. And survey questions on the war often find higher support if they mention Hussein specifically. When Newsweek asked if the U.S. "did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq," 55 percent said yes. When the January NBC/Wall Street Journal poll asked if the U.S. should or should not have taken military action "to remove Saddam Hussein from power," 66 percent said it should.

It's important to note that surveys have also consistently found that about half the public believes Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11 attacks, a claim most counterterrorism experts reject. The late-January Newsweek poll found 49 percent of the public believed Hussein was directly involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Still, there is a distinction between justifying the decision to go to war and the war being worth the financial and human cost. And the number who say it was worth going to war has dropped sharply, from 65 percent in a mid-December Gallup poll right after the capture of Hussein to 49 percent on Jan. 29-Feb. 1. The latest ABC/Post survey also found a sharp drop, from 59 percent on Dec. 21 to 48 percent on Feb. 10-11. Even in the NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, which specifically asked if removing Hussein was worth the "military casualties and the financial cost of the war" found a similar level of support (52 percent).

It's worth noting, however, that the number who say the war is worth fighting has bounced up and down over the past year, depending on events. The ABC/Post poll has found figures as high as 70 percent after the capture of Baghdad in April and as low as 52 percent in November -- although this is the first time the number has fallen below 50 percent.

The revelations about flawed intelligence probably played a role in the recent drop, as well as continuing concern about U.S. casualties (as far back as October six in 10 told the ABC/Post poll that casualty levels were "unacceptable").

Are We Safer?

Surveys find conflicting results on whether the Iraq war has made Americans safer, depending on the way the question is phrased. Six in 10 Americans (58 percent) told the latest ABC/Post poll that the Iraq war has "contributed to the long-term security" of the U.S.

But a January CBS/New York Times survey that specifically asked if the war had made the U.S. safer from terrorists found 50 percent who said it had made the country more safe, compared to 18 percent who said it was less safe and 29 percent who said it hadn't made a difference. Newsweek found even fewer (41 percent) who said the war had made Americans safer from terrorists.

Rebuilding Iraq may not be the key to being safer, according to the Jan. 12-15 CBS/Times poll. Half of those surveyed said if Iraq becomes a stable democracy, it would make no difference in making Americans safer.

What Now?

The public is convinced the job is not over in Iraq -- 72 percent told the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that "most of the challenges remain ahead."

But questions that ask about the specifics of the American commitment get varying results. In the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, only 19 percent want to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq right away, while 56 percent are willing to stay "as long as necessary, even if it takes five years."

At the same time, Gallup found the public split on whether more troops are needed. On Jan. 2-5, 45 percent of the public said the U.S. should withdraw some (29 percent) or all of its forces (16 percent). Another 40 percent said force levels should stay as they are, while only 11 percent wanted to send more troops.

Last fall, surveys indicated some doubt about spending more money on reconstruction. In October, CBS News found 59 percent who opposed Congress' $87 billion appropriation for rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan. A late-October Newsweek survey found 60 percent who said the U.S. is already spending too much in Iraq.

Israel and the Palestinians
A complicating factor in the war on terrorism has been the continuing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has proved violent and intractable. U.S. efforts to broker a settlement have proved fruitless so far, while Middle Eastern governments insist a settlement must precede any expansion of the war on terror.

Historically, surveys show the public sympathizes more with the Israelis than the Palestinians, but would rather not take a side. Most Americans say the U.S. vital interests are at stake in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (61 percent in the April 18-21 ABC News/Washington Post poll). When asked to choose, half of the public (52 percent) told the Gallup poll in June that peace between Palestinians and Israelis should be a higher priority than overthrowing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (42 percent). However, a CBS News poll in July found the public evenly split: 46 percent said the U.S. has a responsibility to broker a settlement, and 46 percent said it's none of our business.

In a Harris Poll conducted July 18-22, 9 percent blame the Israelis for the West Bank violence, 42 percent blame the Palestinians and 30 percent blame both. But 19 percent said they didn't know, and such a high level of undecided responses can mean public opinion is volatile on this topic.

Two-thirds (66 percent) told the ABC/Post poll that Israel's military action in response to a series of suicide bombings is justified, and three-quarters believe Yasser Arafat is responsible for the terrorist attacks. Nine in 10 say Arafat can do more to end those attacks. But there is some public unease with Israel's actions, with 61 percent who say Israel "should have done more" to avoid civilian casualties in its offensive. Four in 10 (43 percent) say the U.S. should apply more pressure on Israel to negotiate.

The public is divided on what more the U.S. can do. The ABC/Washington Post survey in April found the public split on whether to cut military aid to Israel if it fails to withdraw from Palestinian areas (47 percent in favor, 48 percent opposed). The public is just as split on whether to provide the Palestinians with economic aid in exchange for a peace deal (47 percent both for and against). Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) told Fox News they would oppose sending U.S. troops to bring about a ceasefire, but 48 percent would support sending U.S. peacekeepers after a treaty has been signed.

The View of Islam Abroad
One issue that does concern Americans is the possibility that the "war on terrorism" will become what Osama bin Laden claimed it was: a war pitting Islamic and Arab nations against the U.S. and its allies. And a majority of Americans say the U.S. is not getting very far in improving its image.

Just a week before the Sept. 11 anniversary, six in 10 Americans told Gallup that they think the Muslim world considers itself "at war" with the U.S. The same week, a slim majority told the CBS/New York Times survey that the Bush administration has made either "no progress" (21 percent) or "not much" (34 percent) in improving the U.S. image in the Arab world. Last fall, the public was more optimistic. In October 2001, 69 percent told the ABC/Washington Post poll that the U.S. was doing enough to win the support of Muslims, and only 18 percent disagreed.

Both domestic and international critics argue that U.S. policies, such as support for Israel and a possible conflict with Iraq, helped spur extremism in the Middle East. Substantial numbers of Americans are at least considering those arguments. On April 2-3, Fox News found more than half of Americans (54 percent) say "the U.S. needs to find a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as part of winning the war on terrorism." Some 54 percent also told the ABC/Washington Post poll on April 18-21 that U.S. support for Israel is hurting the war on terrorism. More Americans continue to sympathize with the Israelis than the Palestinians, however. [Survey data on the West Bank situation is also available in the section on Israel and the Palestinians.]

Last fall, 55 percent of Americans told the ABC/Washington Post poll they believed most Arabs and Muslims had a negative view of the U.S., and cited support for Israel (68 percent), the spread of Western culture (64 percent), and the presence of U.S. forces in the Mideast (63 percent) as the reasons. Nearly half (48 percent) told Newsweek in early December that U.S. support for "friendly but dictatorial" regimes played a role in increasing support for Islamic militants. But more than one-fifth (22 percent) said they didn't know.

Yet Americans don't necessarily want to change those policies: six in 10 told ABC/Washington Post researchers the U.S. should keep its current level of support for Israel, and they're divided on whether the U.S. should apply more pressure on the Israelis for a peace settlement (46 percent say the U.S. has applied enough pressure; 43 percent say the U.S. should apply more).

Public Agenda's focus is on public opinion in the United States, but Gallup's survey of opinion in nine Islamic countries earlier this year is noteworthy. Majorities in eight of nine countries surveyed condemned the Sept. 11 attacks. But most also considered the U.S. military response "morally unjustifiable," including 80 percent of Pakistanis, 89 percent of Indonesians and 69 percent of Kuwaitis, according to Gallup. Majorities in five nations told Gallup researchers they don't believe Arab groups were behind the Sept. 11 attacks. The full report is available through Gallup.

Racial Profiling and Islam at Home
Ever since the Sept. 11 attacks, there have been concerns among civil rights and civil liberties groups that Arab- and Muslim-Americans would be targeted for "racial profiling" by federal agents hunting suspected terrorists. When presented with stark examples, polls show the public disapproves of targeting anyone solely on the basis of their religion or ethnicity. But surveys also show that the public does not reject the profiling of Arab-Americans as strongly as they would for African Americans.

Polls over many years indicate that most Americans believe in religious tolerance. But just as clearly, Americans are still wrestling with fears surrounding a religion most admit they don't understand. The impression of an "Arab street" overseas hostile to the U.S. may also play a role in public attitudes (see our section on The View of Islam Abroad.)

Surveys conducted in September 2001 found tolerance bending under the emotional strain of the attacks. Several questions show the public's fear and frustration right after the trade center attack, with 58 percent saying Arabs should undergo special security checks before boarding planes and 49 percent saying they should carry special identification. In a Zogby International poll of Arab-Americans in early October, 20 percent said they personally had experienced discrimination since Sept. 11, and 45 percent said they knew someone else who had faced discrimination.

A year later, a Sept. 2002 survey by the CBS/New York Times poll found a third of those surveyed believed Arab Americans were more sympathetic to terrorists, but 57 percent disagreed. That is consistent with other surveys, which have found somewhere between a quarter and a third of the public expressing skepticism about Arab-Americans since the week of Sept. 11. In the same CBS/Times survey, however, nearly nine in 10 Americans (87 percent) say it's at least somewhat likely that Arabs and Muslims will be "singled out unfairly." Eighty percent of those surveyed by Newsweek in August 2002 say detaining people at airports solely because of their religion "goes too far" and 59 percent say using race, religion or ethnicity to identify suspected terrorists also goes too far.

Yet there's also evidence that most Americans view some degree of racial profiling of Arabs and Muslims as regrettable but not intolerable. In January 2002, Public Agenda researchers found two-thirds of Americans agreed that racial profiling of Middle Easterners by law enforcement is "understandable, but you wish it didn't happen." Only 11 percent found "nothing particularly wrong" with profiling, but also only 21 percent said "there's no excuse for this."

By contrast, Public Agenda found half of Americans (52 percent) say there's no excuse for racial profiling of African-Americans. Black Americans are twice as likely to say there's no excuse for racial profiling of Middle Easterners (35 percent among blacks, compared to 18 percent among whites). Yet a solid majority (59 percent) of African-Americans also say that profiling of Middle Easterners is "understandable, but you wish it didn't happen."

A somewhat larger number of Americans reject "jokes or negative remarks about Arabs and Muslims" in Public Agenda's survey. Half say there's no excuse for it, but 44 percent consider it understandable.

In two Public Agenda surveys conducted prior to Sept. 11, one on religion and public life and another on the values parents want to teach their children, we found Americans voiced a firm belief in religious and social tolerance. Most parents, for example, consider intolerance the mark of a bad citizen. Yet we also found in January 2001 that only 7 percent of Americans said they understand Islam well -- perhaps not surprising since Muslims only make up 2 percent of the U.S. population.

Many Americans don't know what to make of Islam. In an ABC News/Beliefnet survey in January 2002, more than one-third (35 percent) chose "no opinion" when asked if they had a favorable or unfavorable view of Islam. Only 14 percent said they believed "mainstream Islam" encourages violence, and 57 percent said they considered it a "peaceful religion," but 29 percent were undecided. And when ABC News asked about violent extremists, 38 percent said Islam had more extremists than other religions, while 41 percent said Islam had no more than other religions. All these questions found an extremely high level of undecideds -- usually anything over 10 percent is considered a sign of public volatility.

Trust in Government
One of the most intriguing public opinion trends after Sept. 11 was the surge in people reporting they trusted the government to do the right thing (as distinct from trusting President Bush personally). But the surge seems to have been short-lived and at least one survey organization has concluded trust levels have receded back to normal levels.

Americans consistently join ranks behind their leaders in the initial stages of a crisis, and approval ratings for President Bush were remarkably high for a remarkably long period. Even in March 2003, President Bush retained a very healthy 57 percent approval rating, according to Gallup results. But approval ratings for a particular president are different from the public's overall trust in the government, which fell during the years of Vietnam and Watergate and never recovered, regardless of how popular the president happened to be. In late September 2001, the ABC News/Washington Post survey found 64 percent said they trust the government to do the right thing "most of the time" or "just about always," the highest rating since the 1960s. The January 2002 CBS/New York Times poll found 46 percent who said the government did the right thing "just about always" or "most of the time" (compared with 26 percent in 1998). Even during the Gulf War, when approval ratings for both the war and for President Bush's father were at high levels, the trust in government rating never exceeded 45 percent.

A May 2002 survey commissioned by the Brookings Institution, however, contends the air of trust quickly faded. The survey, conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates, found that the number saying they trusted the government to do what is right at least most of the time rose from 29 percent in July 2001 to 57 percent in October 2001, but dropped down to 40 percent in May 2002. The number who said the government could be trusted only "some of the time" rose from 39 percent in October to 53 percent in May. By September 2002, the CBS/New York Times survey found that only 37 percent said they trusted the government to do the right thing "always" or "most of the time."

Even before the Brookings survey, there were signs the public was skeptical about long-term change in Washington's political climate. More than half (55 percent) of those surveyed in Public Agenda's study on civility during January 2002 said elected officials had "put politics aside and [paid] more attention to what was good for the country" after the attacks. When asked how long politicians would keep that new attitude, however, the public showed more doubt. Only 30 percent said elected officials would keep that attitude for a long time, while 45 percent said it would last a few months and 23 percent said it was already over.

When asked about specific issues such as the economy, however, President Bush's approval ratings have always been weaker. In the March CBS News survey, 58 percent approved of President Bush overall, but only 41 percent approved of his handling of the economy and 54 percent approve of his handling of Iraq. But this divide was true even when President Bush's ratings were higher.

In the Newsweek poll conducted in August 2002, 68 percent said they approved of President Bush's handling of terrorism overseas and 72 percent approved of his efforts to prevent terrorism at home, but only 48 percent said he was doing a good job on the economy. Back in January 2002, when more than eight in 10 Americans approved of his policies, Newsweek found 54 percent said President Bush's opponents should "go along" with his policies on terrorism, compared to 38 percent who said opponents should "push for a full debate." But on the economy and other domestic issues, the percentages were almost exactly reversed: 54 percent wanted a full debate, compared to 39 percent who wanted the opposition to go along on domestic policy.

There is also a divide between ratings for President Bush personally and others in the government. Nearly half the public (48 percent) told Newsweek in May 2002 that Bush did everything he should have with the warnings received before Sept. 11, while 39 percent said he didn't do enough. But the public is much more critical of "top FBI and CIA officials" (53 percent say they didn't do enough) and "the President's national security advisers" (46 percent). The Newsweek survey also found that 59 percent say the Clinton administration didn't do everything it could have to prepare for a terrorist attack, either.

Protest and Patriotism
Anti-war groups are conducting protests around the country against the invasion of Iraq. Surveys show the public initially rallying to support the president, and expressing a strong desire to support U.S. troops who are in harm's way. Yet the public both accepts the right to protest and does not consider dissent unpatriotic, at least up to a point. A substantial majority of Americans (72 percent) told CBS News in February that people who oppose war should be permitted to rally. The outbreak of war hasn't changed that view: 60 percent told the ABC/Washington Post poll on March 23 that protests are a "sign of a healthy democracy." Only 16 percent said protests should not be permitted.

And before the war began, most Americans gave the protesters credit for sincerity: a Gallup poll in January found 55 percent who believed demonstrations at that time were motivated by "strong moral opposition," as opposed to 36 percent who believed protesters were "the kind of people who tend to blame America first." Seventy percent told the Los Angeles Times in December that they believed demonstrators were loyal Americans. In fact, many expected the protest movement to grow, with 62 percent telling Newsweek that war would create a "protest movement like the one during the time of the Vietnam War."

Yet few say they are persuaded by the demonstrations. Seven in 10 told the ABC/Post poll that last weekend's protests didn't change their opinion and 20 percent said it made them more likely to support the war. Only 7 percent said it made them more likely to oppose the war.

In essence, people do not automatically want to ban protests they disagree with. Even in October 2001, while still gripped by shock and outrage after the Sept. 11 attacks, Newsweek found 70 percent who rejected the idea of the government banning demonstrations against the war in Afghanistan -- even as 53 percent said the protests should stop "now that U.S. military forces are engaged in combat." When Newsweek asked "Do you think someone can be patriotic and NOT support large-scale military action against terrorists," 64 percent agreed.

That basic tolerance does not mean, however, that the public views all forms of protest equally. Some forms of protest, such as burning the flag, provoke overwhelming hostile reactions in surveys. Other protests may only be perceived as unhelpful or unseemly. In Public Agenda's study of attitudes about the Constitution, Knowing It By Heart, we found people admitted to a limited understanding of constitutional liberties. But we also found Americans display a meaningful ability to think carefully about scenarios and situations that bring an individual's rights and freedoms to the forefront. For example, people who hold pro-life and pro-choice views on abortion actually had similar views on what would be acceptable conduct at an abortion protest.

Read previous editions of our running analysis of public reaction to the attacks to see how public opinion has changed since the September 11 attacks.