Public Agenda Special Edition: Terrorism

Introduction

Overview

Bioterrorism

Public Opinion

Sources and Resources

Public Views Transfer of Sovereignty in Iraq With Few Illusions

Updated July 22, 2004

The American people view the handover of sovereignty in Iraq with few illusions, according to surveys taken shortly before the event. There's a difference between handing over sovereignty and having the troops come home, and surveys indicate the public understands that. Strong majorities supported the handover, yet most also seem to have low expectations of the new regime.

A week before the transfer, substantial majorities in multiple polls supported handing over power in Iraq, yet half also said the U.S. would continue to hold the real power. The Gallup poll found 54 percent who thought the handover would improve the situation. But 60 percent also told Gallup it is "a sign U.S. policy is failing" because the U.S is handing over power before it could bring stability to Iraq. Only half think a democratic regime will be established and the public is evenly split on whether the new government will be friendly to the U.S.

Two-thirds, however, told the CBS/New York Times survey that the U.S. has the responsibility to make sure Iraq develops a stable government, even after the transfer. A majority of the public says expects there will be "significant" numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq for three years or longer.

The handover of sovereignty and the technical transfer of Saddam Hussein to the new regime follow a stream of bad news and worse images from Iraq that have put fundamental questions about the war back into play for the public. Depending on the survey, about half the public says the war was "not worth it," "a mistake," or that it hasn't made the U.S. safer. That doesn't mean they doubt the basic morality of the war. The fact that two-thirds say the Iraqis are better off shows that. The doubts in surveys are not so much whether the war was just, but whether it has made the U.S. more secure and whether a new Iraq is feasible or worth the investment of American lives and money.

The American public has long had a distaste for Saddam Hussein and view his removal as one of the main accomplishments of the war, perhaps the biggest one. As he faces trial in Iraq, four in 10 Americans still believe he had a personal hand in the Sept. 11 attacks. Even more believe he had some connection to al Qaeda.

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
More than 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 July 2004, the economy is still leading. The July 8-11 ABC/Washington Post poll found that 26 percent said the economy would be the "single most important issue" in the election, while 19 percent chose the war in Iraq and 18 percent said terrorism. 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.

Shortly after 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. Later surveys show similar results, with Fox News finding 62 percent who said it was likely terrorists would make an attack "to try to influence the outcome of the presidential election." The July 11-15 CBS/New York Times survey showed seven in 10 Americans said a terrorist attack in the U.S. is at least somewhat likely in the next few months (24 percent said "very likely.")

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.

Comparatively few 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 of 2001). 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.

Public Views Transfer of Sovereignty in Iraq With Few Illusions
The American people view the handover of sovereignty in Iraq with few illusions, according to surveys taken shortly before the event. There's a difference between handing over sovereignty and having the troops come home, and surveys indicate the public understands that. Strong majorities supported the handover, yet most also seem to have low expectations of the new regime.

A week before the transfer, substantial majorities in multiple polls supported handing over power in Iraq, yet half also said the U.S. would continue to hold the real power. The Gallup poll found 54 percent who thought the handover would improve the situation. But 60 percent also told Gallup it is "a sign U.S. policy is failing" because the U.S is handing over power before it could bring stability to Iraq. Only half think a democratic regime will be established and the public is evenly split on whether the new government will be friendly to the U.S.

Two-thirds, however, told the CBS/New York Times survey that the U.S. has the responsibility to make sure Iraq develops a stable government, even after the transfer. A majority of the public says expects there will be "significant" numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq for three years or longer.

The handover of sovereignty and the technical transfer of Saddam Hussein to the new regime follow a stream of bad news and worse images from Iraq that have put fundamental questions about the war back into play for the public. Depending on the survey, about half the public says the war was "not worth it," "a mistake," or that it hasn't made the U.S. safer. That doesn't mean they doubt the basic morality of the war. The fact that two-thirds say the Iraqis are better off shows that. The doubts in surveys are not so much whether the war was just, but whether it has made the U.S. more secure and whether a new Iraq is feasible or worth the investment of American lives and money.

The American public has long had a distaste for Saddam Hussein and view his removal as one of the main accomplishments of the war, perhaps the biggest one. As he faces trial in Iraq, four in 10 Americans still believe he had a personal hand in the Sept. 11 attacks. Even more believe he had some connection to al Qaeda.

Sovereignty and Stability

A week before the handover, substantial majorities said they favored the move (82 percent in the ABC/Washington Post poll, 75 percent in the Gallup poll). Yet 58 percent told the ABC/Post survey the handover would be purely symbolic and 53 percent said the U.S. would continue to hold the real power there. Sixty percent in the most recent Gallup poll said the handover was "a sign that U.S. policy is failing" because the U.S. was turning over power before stability was achieved.

It's important to note that majorities of the public do not believe the U.S. can hand over power and walk away. Two-thirds say the U.S. has the responsibility to make sure Iraq develops a stable government, even after the transfer, according to the CBS/New York Times survey conducted June 23-27. Some 57 percent told the ABC/Post survey that the U.S. should keep forces in Iraq "until civil order is restored, even if that means continued U.S military casualties" (even as 71 percent say casualty levels are unacceptable).

But public expectations for the new Iraq seem to be low. The Gallup poll conducted June 21-23 found 54 percent who thought the handover would improve the situation, but only 52 percent think a democratic regime will be established in the next five years and 60 percent doubt internal security will be established. When asked if the new government would be friendly to the U.S, Gallup found an even split: 48 percent said it was likely, 50 percent said it was unlikely.

There are also mixed views on how much power the new Iraqi government should have. The ABC/Post poll found majorities said the Iraqis should have "final say" on managing their economy (84 percent), running the oil industry (78 percent) and administering aid from other countries (63 percent). But majorities said the U.S. should have final say on administering U.S.-funded aid (64 percent) and the activities of U.S. military forces (61 percent).

Yet the public is evenly divided on whether the Iraqis should be able to tell U.S. troops to leave: 49 percent said the U.S. should have the final say on the U.S. military presence, 48 percent said the Iraqis should. Gallup's survey found that 40 percent thought a "significant" number of U.S. troops will be in Iraq three to five years from now, with another 23 percent saying troops would be there even longer than that.

Nearly two-thirds (65 percent) say the U.S. should turn over Saddam Hussein to the Iraqis, but only a slight majority (54 percent) say the Iraqis should have final say about what happens to him.

The latest polls find slightly more than half the public say the Bush administration does not have a clear plan for Iraq (51 percent in the CBS/Times survey, 55 percent in an early-June Pew Research Center poll).. But as with the question of casualties, this has been a concern for the public in multiple surveys since at least last summer. The most recent CBS/Times poll is actually an improvement over May, when 60 percent said the administration lacked a clear plan.

Is it Worth It? Was it Right?

For the first time, only half the public says the Iraq war was the right thing to do. Multiple polls in May and June 2004 asked if the war was either the "right thing" or the "right decision" and got similar results who said it was: Pew (51 percent), Newsweek (51 percent), CBS/Times (48 percent). In June, Gallup found a sharp increase in the number who say sending troops was a "mistake": in the June 3-6 survey, 58 percent said it wasn't; by June 21-23, 54 percent said it was.

Since the war began, majorities of the public have said it was justified, but there has been a long decline of 17 points on this issue over the past year. Back in April 2003, 74 percent told the Pew Research Center that the war was the right decision. Looking at it another way, only 23 percent told Gallup that sending troops was a mistake in March 2003.

And the April CBS/New York Times 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.

Yet even multiple confirmations of one trend don't tell the whole story. A substantial majority (72 percent) still tell Gallup that Iraq is better off than it was before the U.S.-led invasion - certainly a moral argument made by supporters of the war.

When it comes to justifying the war, a key factor has been the public's conviction that Saddam Hussein was a corrupt leader of a brutal regime. Surveys through the 1990s consistently found public support for U.S. action to remove Hussein.

Even after the 9-11 commission reported that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, 44 percent told Gallup that Hussein was "personally involved" in the attacks (51 percent say he wasn't). Even more say Hussein had "long-established ties" to al Qaeda (67 percent in the Gallup poll) or provided "direct support" (68 percent in the ABC/Post poll). Survey questions on the war often find higher support if they mention Hussein specifically.

For example, 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 on whether the war was the right thing to do also found 57 percent who considered capturing Hussein the most important accomplishment of the war.

In the most recent surveys, questions that ask if the war was "worth it" get results are very similar to the polls that ask if the war was right: Gallup (51 percent), ABC/Post (52 percent) and Los Angeles Times (53 percent) all found about half the public who said it wasn't worth it. 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 and as low as 48 percent in February 2004.

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. About half (51 percent) told the June ABC/Post poll that the Iraq war has "contributed to the long-term security" of the U.S.

But the June 21-23 Gallup poll found 55 percent who said the war had made the U.S. less safe from terrorism, up from 33 percent in December. Some 47 percent told the CBS/Times survey that the threat of terrorism against the U.S. had increased because of the Iraq war, and 55 percent said the involvement in Iraq is creating more terrorists.

The ABC/Post poll also asked about other consequences of the war, finding three-quarters said it had damaged the U.S. image overseas. Some 56 percent said the war had not contributed to peace and stability in the Middle East.

The Prison Photos

There's little doubt the public is repulsed by the photos from the Abu Ghraib prison. Three-quarters said they'd seen at least some of the photos, according to the Pew Research Center poll conducted May 3-9. And strong majorities reject the conduct of the soldiers involved, or the contention that the scandal is overblown. Eight in 10 consider the actions "not justified, because U.S. soldiers should be held to a higher standard," according to the CBS News poll conducted May 20-23. Only 12 percent said the abuse was justified "because that is what can happen to prisoners of war." Gallup, in a May 8-9 poll, found 73 percent who said there were no circumstances where the abuse would be justified.

But the public does not believe this is typical behavior for American soldiers, with 60 percent telling the May 20-23 ABC/Washington Post survey the case represents "a few isolated incidents." And the public believes that overall the U.S. lives up to its standards. Gallup found 81 percent who believe U.S. soldiers generally have higher standards of behavior than soldiers from other countries and 74 percent who believe the U.S. generally has higher moral principals for going to war.

At the same time, only four in 10 told the ABC/Post poll that the soldiers were acting on their own - some 54 percent say they were following orders. Seven in 10 told Fox News that the soldiers' supervisors were aware of the abuse, but only 45 percent told Newsweek the abuse was authorized by higher-ups. In both the Fox and Newsweek polls, however, substantial numbers said they didn't know.

The ABC/Post poll also tried to probe what specific tactics might be acceptable in getting information from prisoners. The survey found substantial majorities reject sexual humiliation (84 percent), electric shocks (82 percent) and threatening family members (80 percent). But smaller majorities said they would accept denying sleep (66 percent), using hoods (57 percent) and bombarding suspects with loud noise (54 percent).

The other shocking image was the videotaped beheading of American civilian Nick Berg. Newsweek found conflicting reactions to the video, with 43 percent who said it was "a reminder of the brutality of our enemies and why the United States went to war in Iraq," while 38 percent said it showed that the U.S. presence in Iraq is "making Americans a bigger target for terrorists." Fox News polling reported that the beheading made 48 percent of voters surveyed say U.S. troops needed to fight more aggressively, compared to 31 percent who said troops should pull out.

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.

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?
In the wake of the 9-11 commission hearings, surveys find the public saying there is blame enough to go around for the worst terrorist attack in modern history. A majority says there wasn't enough information to prevent the attacks. Yet four in 10 said they blame the Bush administration -- and roughly the same number blames the Clinton administration as well. And despite the commission's conclusion that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, four in 10 Americans tell pollsters they believe Saddam Hussein had a direct hand in the attacks.

In the Gallup survey conducted June 21-23, after the final public hearing, 42 percent said they blame the Bush administration "a great deal" or a "moderate amount" for the attacks. That's up from 32 percent in June 2002. But 40 percent also said they blame the Clinton administration for the attacks.

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.

Yet the June Gallup poll also found that 59 percent said there wasn't enough information to prevent the attacks, while one-third said there was.

The most controversial conclusion of the last commission session was the panel's judgment that Iraq and al Qaeda did not have work together jointly, with Vice President Cheney saying there was a strong relationship between the two. (Read the 9-11 commission's statement.) Surveys have consistently found a substantial number of Americans believe Iraq had something to do with the Sept. 11 attacks, and many still do, although the numbers have dropped.

The Gallup poll found 44 percent believe Hussein was "personally involved" in the Sept. 11 attacks, down from 53 percent in December 2003. When the questions are phrased more broadly, the number who say there is a link also rises. The June 2004 ABC/Washington Post poll found 62 percent who believe Iraq provided "direct support" to al Qaeda, and Gallup showed 67 percent who said Hussein had "long-established ties to Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization."

The ABC/Post poll also found the public split down the middle on whether the Bush administration told the truth about links between Iraq and al Qaeda, one of the administration's justifications for the Iraq war. Fifty percent said the administration "told the American public what it believed to be true," while 48 percent said they "intentionally misled" the public.

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.

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.