Seven in 10 Americans told an ABC/Washington Post poll that reports of U.S. troops abusing Iraqi prisoners are "a big deal" and "unacceptable," with 59 percent saying President Bush should apologize to the Iraqi people. But just as many (62 percent) say the scandal involves a few isolated incidents - and 28 percent said "this kind of thing happens in a war situation."

The survey, the first to ask specifically about the prison abuses, found the public divided on whether the Bush administration acted quickly enough to investigate (42 percent say yes, 42 percent said no). But while two-thirds told the ABC/Post poll that the soldiers should be charged with a crime and 54 percent said higher-level officers should be punished, 69 percent said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should not resign over the incident.

The abuse scandal comes at a time when the continued turmoil in Iraq is taking its toll on public attitudes. Six in 10 say the U.S. is not in control of the situation there, and the number who say the war was the right thing to do has fallen. Two-thirds of voters say power should be handed over to the Iraqis in June as scheduled, but few think the Iraqis are ready to take over. Even before photos showing abuse of Iraqi prisoners became public, 71 percent told the CBS/New York Times poll that the Iraq war was making America's image worse among Arabs and nearly half said the Iraqis were "resentful" of the U.S.

News events clearly drive public attitudes on many Iraq survey questions. The number who say the war is "worth it," in particular, has bounced up and down reaching high points after the fall of Baghdad last spring and the capture of Saddam Hussein in December. Hard fighting and setbacks, as might be expected, drive support down. The most recent surveys find the number who say the war was worth it has fallen to four in 10.

Until recently, survey questions on specifics seemed most prone to change, while questions about the basic morality of deposing the Hussein regime seemed more solid. At least one survey shows the public divided on whether the war was the right thing to do and a long-term decline in those who believe Iraq was a threat that required immediate action. It's far too soon to call this a trend, and good news from the field could well change the entire picture. But it is an indication that at least for some Americans the news from Iraq is unsettling enough to cause them to revisit basic questions about the war.

Bin Laden and Al Qaeda
The Madrid bombing shows the al Qaeda terrorist network is still capable of striking the West, even as American and Pakistani forces launch new offensives against it. Half of the public (51 percent) told the ABC/Washington Post survey in January 2004 that the U.S. had done a good job of breaking up al Qaeda, with another 11 percent calling the effort "excellent." Yet a large majority (80 percent) told Gallup in December 2003 they believe that there are al Qaeda terrorists currently in the U.S. who "have the resources to launch a major terrorist attack…at any time."

Part of the reason for the military offensives in Afghanistan and Pakistan is to try and track down Osama bin Laden (if he's still alive) and his senior lieutenants. Majorities of the public have said bin Laden was alive in surveys, but the focus on getting him has gone up and down since the Sept. 11 attacks. A March 2004 Fox News survey found 63 percent of registered voters said the U.S. would be safer if bin Laden were captured. And in a December 2003 Gallup survey, 50 percent said the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan will not be a success unless bin Laden is captured.

But in previous surveys, far fewer people thought getting bin Laden personally was essential. 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."

Support for the U.S. war in Afghanistan has always been high (71 percent in the December 2003 Gallup poll). But there has been some erosion - support was at 83 percent in September 2002.

The public has also long considered there to be a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, despite the skepticism of most counterterrorism experts. In August 2003, 51 percent told the ABC/Washington Post poll that it was "very likely" Saddam Hussein had provided assistance to bin Laden, with another 31 percent who said it was "somewhat likely." (For additional details, see our analysis of surveys on the war in Iraq).

The Home Front and the Election
Half of Americans say it's likely that terrorist attacks will be timed to influence this fall's elections, much as the Madrid bombings affected the Spanish elections. Still, recent surveys indicate terrorism is still second to the economy as an election issue. And solid majorities say it's inappropriate for political campaigns to use Sept 11 images in their TV commercials - although they're somewhat more willing to let President Bush do so.

Since Sept. 11, terrorism and the economy have consistently been the top issues for the public in surveys. As of March 2004, the economy is leading. The March 7 ABC/Washington Post poll found that 36 percent said the economy would be the "single most important issue" in the election, while 17 percent said terrorism and 10 percent said the war in Iraq. When asked to choose between a hypothetical candidate who would do a good job on the economy versus one who would do well on terrorism, 51 percent chose the economy while 42 percent voted for the better candidate on terrorism, according to Gallup's March 5-7 poll.

In the wake of the Madrid bombings, 48 percent told Newsweek it's likely that terrorist attacks will be carried out close to Election Day in an attempt to influence the presidential election. Two-thirds of those surveyed in the March 18-19 Newsweek poll said it was very (26 percent) or somewhat likely (40 percent) that terrorist attacks would be carried out against "major U.S. cities, buildings or national landmarks" before Election Day.

Still, politicians should probably approach the terrorism issue with care. After President Bush was criticized for citing 9-11 in his first television ads, the CBS/New York Times survey found 61 percent who said using Sept. 11 images was "not acceptable." Gallup found two-thirds who said such ads were "inappropriate." Yet when Gallup rephrased the question to ask if it was appropriate for President Bush to run such ads, 42 percent said it was, while only 54 percent said it was inappropriate.

Even when terrorism isn't the top issue in surveys, it always seems slightly beneath the surface of public opinion. Many public attitudes about terrorism seem driven by events -- rising when a warning is issued or an incident occurs and falling as time passes without an attack. Views seem to be tinged with a calculation of an individual's own risk and personality, 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.

National surveys find a strong majority tell survey researchers they're convinced al Qaeda could strike again on American soil. Eight in 10 told Gallup in December 2003 they believe that there are al Qaeda terrorists currently in the U.S. who "have the resources to launch a major terrorist attack…at any time." The same number (81 percent) told Gallup a month later they have a "great deal" (31 percent) or a "fair amount" (50 percent) of confidence the government can protect the nation.

The January 2-5 Gallup poll found 46 percent who said a terrorist attack in the U.S. was likely in the next several weeks. That's 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 January 2004 Gallup poll 28 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 (87 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 a September 2003 New York Times survey. Half of New Yorkers said they feel personally "uneasy" about the possibility of an attack.

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
Public attitudes about the USA Patriot Act may not be what they seem. With the controversial act up for renewal next year, no single poll question gives a clear picture of the public's conflicting desires, fears and doubts about civil liberties and terrorism.

When Gallup asked about the Patriot Act in February 2004, 43 percent said the law was "about right" on civil liberties, with 26 percent who said it went too far and another 21 percent who said it didn't go far enough. Phrasing the question another way, Fox News found 55 percent who said the act was a "good thing" for the country in June 2003, with only 27 percent who said it was a bad thing.

Yet four in 10 people admitted to Gallup that they were unfamiliar with the law. When people are asked more probing questions, some specific provisions of the law are unpopular. Seven in 10 told Gallup they oppose allowing federal agents to secretly search a citizen's home. The public is split on some other Patriot Act features, with 51 percent opposing the requirement that libraries, bookstores and hospitals secretly turn over records to investigators on request.

Public Agenda's research suggests that the public's views on civil liberties can depend on two things: how threatened they feel and their own personal experience with the law. In our 2002 study on the Constitution, Knowing It By Heart, Public Agenda found that while most Americans admit they don't know details about the Bill of Rights, they seem to have absorbed its core values. Most respondents were able to put aside their personal views to consider the rights of others - but it was also clear that the public was still working out its beliefs on civil liberties and terrorism.

During high-crime periods a sense of danger affected public attitudes about the rights of suspects, and it certainly played into attitudes about terrorism in 2001. From the very first surveys after Sept. 11, many Americans told pollsters that the country would have to trade off some rights to fight terrorism. But that belief seems to have faded with time.

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). By August 2003, only 29 percent told Gallup that the government should take "all steps necessary" to prevent terrorism, even if civil liberties were violated. Two-thirds (67 percent) said the government should take steps to prevent terrorism "but not if those steps would violate your basic civil liberties." New attacks on American soil, however, might well change those views.

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.

Finally, personal experience is always a potent factor in public attitudes, and few Americans have ever lived under the restrictions that worry civil libertarians. Nine in 10 voters told Fox News in July 2003 that the Patriot Act hadn't affected them or their families. Indeed, many Americans may not be following these questions closely. In Public Agenda's 2002 focus groups on this topic, many participants seemed to be struggling with this balance for the first time.

The way survey questions are worded seems to make a difference in the response -- another 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 spiked 20 points after Sept. 11 and much of the debate over homeland security has focused on gaining better control of the nation's borders. But public attitudes about immigration are complex, and there's evidence that the public isn't so much resisting immigration as it is frustrated with the government's longstanding failure to stem illegal immigration.

Many of the hundreds of people detained during the government's hunt for al Qaeda operatives were held on immigration charges. Those alleged immigration violations 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 Constitution 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."

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. That may also factor into initial public support for the government's policy of fingerprinting foreign visitors from certain countries - in January 2004, Fox News found eight in 10 voters supported fingerprinting all foreigners entering the U.S.

It's important to note that Americans hold many positive views of immigrants, and the romantic idea of immigrants as the real believers in America still resonates. In Public Agenda's 2002 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.

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

Most Say Prisoner Abuse "Unacceptable," Six in 10 Say U.S. Not in Control of Iraq
Seven in 10 Americans told an ABC/Washington Post poll that reports of U.S. troops abusing Iraqi prisoners are "a big deal" and "unacceptable," with 59 percent saying President Bush should apologize to the Iraqi people. But just as many (62 percent) say the scandal involves a few isolated incidents - and 28 percent said "this kind of thing happens in a war situation."

The survey, the first to ask specifically about the prison abuses, found the public divided on whether the Bush administration acted quickly enough to investigate (42 percent say yes, 42 percent said no). But while two-thirds told the ABC/Post poll that the soldiers should be charged with a crime and 54 percent said higher-level officers should be punished, 69 percent said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should not resign over the incident.

The abuse scandal comes at a time when the continued turmoil in Iraq is taking its toll on public attitudes. Six in 10 say the U.S. is not in control of the situation there, and the number who say the war was the right thing to do has fallen. Two-thirds of voters say power should be handed over to the Iraqis in June as scheduled, but few think the Iraqis are ready to take over. Even before photos showing abuse of Iraqi prisoners became public, 71 percent told the CBS/New York Times poll that the Iraq war was making America's image worse among Arabs and nearly half said the Iraqis were "resentful" of the U.S.

News events clearly drive public attitudes on many Iraq survey questions. The number who say the war is "worth it," in particular, has bounced up and down reaching high points after the fall of Baghdad last spring and the capture of Saddam Hussein in December. Hard fighting and setbacks, as might be expected, drive support down. The most recent surveys find the number who say the war was worth it has fallen to four in 10.

Until recently, survey questions on specifics seemed most prone to change, while questions about the basic morality of deposing the Hussein regime seemed more solid. At least one survey shows the public divided on whether the war was the right thing to do and a long-term decline in those who believe Iraq was a threat that required immediate action. It's far too soon to call this a trend, and good news from the field could well change the entire picture. But it is an indication that at least for some Americans the news from Iraq is unsettling enough to cause them to revisit basic questions about the war.

Still Worth It?

Since the war began, majorities of the public have said that the Iraq war is justified, although the numbers have dropped by 17 points over the past year and have softened in recent weeks. Some 57 percent said going to war was the right decision in the April 2004 Pew Research Center survey, down from 74 percent in April 2003. Other April surveys found similar results, even as the Fallujah fighting raged.

The public's conviction that Saddam Hussein was a corrupt despot has shored up this view -- surveys through the 1990s consistently found public support for U.S. action to remove Hussein. Surveys have found substantial numbers of the public believes Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11 attacks, a claim most counterterrorism experts reject. And survey questions on the war often find higher support if they mention Hussein specifically.

In March, the CBS/Times poll found 58 percent who said the U.S. "did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq." By April 23-27, the public was split in the poll: 47 percent said yes, 46 percent said no. The poll also found a similar split on whether the war was "a mistake," with 48 percent saying it was (up from 24 percent a year before). And the survey showed a 29-point decline over the past year over whether Iraq was a threat that required immediate military action or whether it could have been contained. In March 2003, 61 percent said Iraq had required immediate action, by April 2004 that had fallen to 32 percent.

But when the May NBC/Wall Street Journal poll asked if the U.S. should or should not have taken military action "to remove Saddam Hussein from power," 60 percent said it should. And the CBS/Times survey that found the public split also found 57 percent who considered capturing Hussein the most important accomplishment of the war.

Still, there is a distinction between whether the war is a just cause and whether it is worth the financial and human cost. And the number who say it was worth going to war has also dropped, from 65 percent in a mid-December Gallup poll right after the capture of Hussein to 52 percent on April 16-18. The ABC/Post survey fell from 59 percent on Dec. 21 to 52 percent on April 15-18. Even the May NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, which specifically asked if removing Hussein was worth the "military casualties and the financial cost of the war" found 42 percent who said it was worth it, with 47 percent who said it wasn't.

It's worth noting, however, that survey questions on whether the war is "worth fighting" seem the most sensitive to events. The ABC/Post poll has found figures as high as 70 percent after the capture of Baghdad in April 2003 and as low as 48 percent in February 2004.

Stay or Go?

Two-thirds of registered voters think the U.S. should meet its self-imposed June 30 deadline to hand over power to an Iraqi government, according to the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll conducted May 1-3. That's consistent with what surveys of the general public found in April.

Yet nearly as many (64 percent) told the NBC/Journal poll that the Iraqi people won't be ready to take over by then. Half don't believe Iraq will be able to maintain a stable, democratic government, while 60 percent said the U.S. is not in control of the situation. And 57 percent told the CBS/Times survey that they don't think the Bush administration has a "clear plan" for the transfer of power.

But perhaps the public expects the U.S. to maintain a strong hand. Some 63 percent told the mid-April ABC/Washington Post survey that the transfer should go ahead as planned - but nearly as many (58 percent) said it would be a "symbolic transfer with no real change of power." At around the same time some 61 percent told Gallup that the U.S. should keep troops in Iraq "well beyond June 30 to make sure the new government succeeds."

But the latest fighting seems to have sent attitudes on using more or fewer troops into flux, although there seems to be support for committing more forces. Surveys taken later in April, after the Fallujah insurgency was well under way, found 66 percent telling the ABC/Washington Post survey that U.S. forces should stay "until civil order is restored" and 54 percent who would send more troops. And the April 16-18 Gallup survey found 58 percent who said the U.S. "must intensify its military efforts in Iraq."

Yet Gallup's question about troop strength got a more divided result. While the number who would send more troops tripled (from 11 percent to 33 percent), the number who wanted to withdraw all troops bounced from 16 percent in January to 28 percent on April 5-8 and then to 21 percent on April 16-18. There was not a majority for any course of action, including standing pat. The early May NBC/Journal poll also found a division on how long troops should stay, with 25 percent of voters saying they should leave "as soon as possible," 30 percent who said they should stay up to 18 months and 44 percent who said "as long as necessary, even if it's five years."

The Fallujah uprising may well have influenced the results, but it's important to point out that six in 10 Americans have said casualty levels have been "unacceptable" since last October, according to the ABC/Washington Post poll. The ABC/Post poll on April 15-18 showed 65 percent saying casualties are unacceptable.

Are We Safer?

Surveys have found conflicting results on whether the Iraq war has made Americans safer, depending on the way the question is phrased. Six in 10 Americans (57 percent) told the April ABC/Post poll that the Iraq war has "contributed to the long-term security" of the U.S.

But the March 31-April 1 CBS/New York Times survey that specifically asked if the war had made the U.S. safer from terrorists found 36 percent who said it had made the country more safe (down from 42 percent in February), compared to 22 percent who said it was less safe and 38 percent who said it hadn't made a difference. After the Fallujah battle started Newsweek found 42 percent said in early April that the Iraq war had increased the risk that "large numbers of Americans will be killed…in a future terrorist attack," with 29 percent who said it decreased the risk and 24 percent who said it made no difference. About half (51 percent) told the ABC/Post poll that the Middle East in general was less stable because of the war. Seven in 10 told the CBS/New York Times poll that the Iraq war was making America's image worse among Arabs and nearly half said the Iraqis were "resentful" of the U.S.

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 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.

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. [Additional detail is available in the section on "The View of Islam Abroad."]

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.

The 9-11 Commission: Enough Blame to Go Around?
As the 9-11 commission investigation proceeds, surveys find the public saying there is blame enough to go around for the worst terrorist attack in modern history. Six in 10 say the Bush administration underestimated the threat of terrorism before Sept. 11, while two-thirds say the administration could have done more to prevent the attacks. Yet surveys find most people say the Clinton administration and the intelligence agencies deserve as much or more blame. Six in 10 say the intelligence reports were too vague and eight in 10 say the Bush administration is doing a better job now.

In a Newsweek poll conducted after both Richard Clarke and Condoleeza Rice had testified before the commission (April 8-9), some 60 percent of those surveyed said the Bush administration "underestimated the terrorist threat" prior to Sept. 11. In the CBS News poll conducted March 30-April 1, 72 percent said the Bush administration was "not paying enough attention" to terrorism before Sept. 11 and 67 percent said the administration "could have done more" to prevent the attacks.

Even so, 71 percent also told CBS that the Clinton administration wasn't paying enough attention to terrorism and could have done more. Newsweek found a plurality (39 percent) who said both administrations were equally to blame (with 24 percent blaming Clinton and 18 percent blaming Bush).

An even larger number, 79 percent, told CBS the FBI and CIA could have done more. Newsweek found half (52 percent) said "not enough information from intelligence agencies" contributed more to the failure to prevent the attacks than the administration's lack of focus. More than half (56 percent) in the ABC/Washington Post survey conducted April 15-18 said the Bush administration had not done enough to follow up on intelligence reports, but 62 percent also said the reports "were too vague for the government to know what action to take."

The public does seem to believe the commission hearings serve a purpose. Nearly six in 10 (57 percent) told the CBS News poll that what the Bush administration knew before Sept. 11 matters to them. The ABC/Post survey also found that 81 percent say the Bush administration is doing a better job now of handling intelligence about terrorism.

Protest and Patriotism
While the public is generally supportive of the war in Iraq, surveys find the public also accepts the right to protest and does not consider dissent unpatriotic, at least up to a point. Even at the outbreak of the Iraq war, when support for the invasion was at its highest point, most Americans said people who oppose war should be permitted to rally. Six in 10 told the ABC/Washington Post poll in March 2003 that protests are a "sign of a healthy democracy." Only 16 percent said protests should not be permitted.

And most Americans gave the protesters credit for sincerity: a Gallup poll in January 2003 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."

Yet few said they were persuaded by the demonstrations. Seven in 10 told the ABC/Post poll that 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 surveys since, support for the war seems to swing based on events in the field. (For more information, see our analysis of surveys on the war in Iraq).

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.

• Introduction
• Bin Laden and Al Qaeda
• The Home Front and the Election
• Remembrance and Healing
• Civil Liberties
• Immigration
• Six in 10 Say U.S. Not in Control of Iraq, Few Believe Iraqis Ready to Take Power
• The View of Islam Abroad
• Racial Profiling and Islam at Home
• The 9-11 Commission: Enough Blame to Go Around?
• Protest and Patriotism

• CBS News/New York Times survey
  
• Gallup survey
  
• Los Angeles Times
• Newsweek poll
  
• Pew Research Center survey