Public Agenda Special Edition: Terrorism

Introduction

Overview

Bioterrorism

Public Opinion

Sources and Resources

Public Doubtful About Iraq Elections, But Says They Should Be Held

Updated December 22, 2004

Six months after the handover of sovereignty and with Iraqi elections set for January, surveys find the American public still skeptical about the prospects for a new government there. Majorities say Iraq isn't ready to have an election and doubt the voting will be honest. Very few believe the election will allow U.S. troops to come home anytime soon.

Yet a majority also says the elections should be held as scheduled, despite their doubts, and half would send additional troops to help the elections. That's in keeping with other surveys over the past year that shows the public dissatisfied with events in Iraq but unwilling to withdraw.

At least one survey finds a majority says the Iraq is "not worth fighting," but responses to that question frequently bounce up and down based on events. Interestingly, however, the latest ABC/Washington Post poll found 47 percent say they "strongly" believe the war wasn't worth it - a 10 point jump since July.

Public Opinion: 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).

Public Opinion: The Home Front and the Election
With terrorism a major focus of the presidential campaign, the number of Americans who worry they or their families might become a victim of terrorism has increased over the last two months. Most surveys of voters show terrorism surpassing the economy as an issue for the public.

But surveys find most think the nation is safer than it was on Sept. 11 - and half don't think the outcome of the presidential election will change the odds of another attack.

Some 47 percent told Gallup they were at least "somewhat worried" that they or their families would be victims, up from 34 percent in August. That's up from a post-9/11 low point of 28 percent in January 2004, but far below than the peak of 59 percent during the anthrax scare of October 2001, or the 48 percent as the Iraq war began in February 2004. Some 85 percent told the August Los Angeles Times poll that the government's warnings about terrorism linked to the election had not "shaken [their] own personal sense of safety and security."

The mere fact that terrorism has been such a focus of the campaign might be affecting public attitudes, or people may be taking warnings of terror attacks timed to the elections to heart. Shortly after the Madrid bombings in March, 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.

Of course, those results may depend on the community. About half of New Yorkers (53 percent ) told a CBS/New York Times poll they were at least somewhat worried about a terrorist attack during the Republican National Convention. A year earlier, 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.

Surveys this year have consistently shown terrorism, the economy and Iraq are the top issues for the public. Different surveys show these concerns in different order, depending on whether pollsters survey the general public, registered voters or "likely voters." Several organizations have found "likely voters" to be more worried about terrorism. As with many surveys this election year, these results vary from poll to poll. Shifts between these three concerns tend to be small, however, and different pollsters use different methods of identifying likely voters. So these findings should be viewed with caution. The Oct. 14-16 Gallup poll had the economy at 32 percent, terrorism at 29 percent and Iraq at 22 percent for the general public.

It's fair to say, however, that it is unusual for foreign policy questions to be so high in the public's mind. The Pew Research Center recently concluded that this is the first election since Vietnam where foreign policy outweighed domestic issues.

Yet 49 percent also say the outcome of the election will have no effect on the chances of more terrorist attacks, according to the Sept. 3-5 Gallup poll. Some 31 percent said the chances of an attack will be less if President Bush is re-elected, while 16 percent said the odds would be less if Sen. John Kerry were elected.

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."

Still, six in 10 told the ABC/Washington Post poll in August 2004 that they believed the country was safer from terrorism than it had been on Sept. 11 (31 percent said it was less safe). The NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, with different question wording, found registered voters more divided. Some 41 percent said the country was more safe, 31 percent said it was about as safe, and 27 percent said it was less safe. About half in the ABC/Post poll give President Bush a "great deal" or a "good amount" of credit for the improvement.

Public Opinion: 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.

Public Opinion: 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 Newsweek asked in September 2004 whether the Patriot Act should be renewed, 50 percent said it should while 40 percent said it shouldn't. 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 in February 2004 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.

Public Opinion: 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 Doubtful About Iraq Elections, But Says They Should Be Held
Six months after the handover of sovereignty and with Iraqi elections set for January, surveys find the American public still skeptical about the prospects for a new government there. Majorities say Iraq isn't ready to have an election and doubt the voting will be honest. Very few believe the election will allow U.S. troops to come home anytime soon.

Yet a majority also says the elections should be held as scheduled, despite their doubts, and half would send additional troops to help the elections. That's in keeping with other surveys over the past year that shows the public dissatisfied with events in Iraq but unwilling to withdraw.

At least one survey finds a majority says the Iraq is "not worth fighting," but responses to that question frequently bounce up and down based on events. Interestingly, however, the latest ABC/Washington Post poll found 47 percent say they "strongly" believe the war wasn't worth it - a 10 point jump since July.

Diminished Expectations

Nearly six in 10 (58 percent) say the Iraqis aren't ready to hold their election next month, according to the Dec. 16-19 ABC/Washington Post poll. A majority (54 percent) says the elections won't have a "fair and accurate vote count" and won't produce a stable government. Only 15 percent told Gallup they expected the election to produce a stable government that would allow U.S. troops to come home.

Yet 60 percent also told ABC/Post researchers that the election should be held as scheduled. Almost as many (58 percent) say U.S. troops should stay until civil order is restored, essentially unchanged from six months ago. The Pew Research Center found similar results in its Dec. 1-16 survey, with 56 percent saying the U.S. should stay until "the situation has stabilized." Gallup's December poll found the public evenly divided on whether they'd be willing to send even more troops to help with the election (50 percent in favor, 48 opposed).

But public views on this haven't changed much since sovereignty was handed over in June. Back then, only 52 percent told Gallup they thought a democratic regime will be established in the next five years.

But while a majority of the public seems willing to stick it out in Iraq, they give the U.S. mixed grades at best for how it has handled the situation. Pew found 50 percent who said the situation was going well for the U.S. A majority (58 percent) disapproves of how the U.S. has handled Iraq in "the past few months," according to the Dec. 17-19 Gallup poll. Nearly half (47 percent) say the situation in Iraq is worse for the U.S. than it was a year ago, while only 20 percent say it has improved.

In addition, 70 percent say casualty levels in Iraq are unacceptable in the Dec. 16-19 ABC/Post poll. But majorities have said that for more than a year and the figure is essentially unchanged since June.

A Pew Research Center survey conducted Sept. 8-14, found 55 percent of the public said the Bush administration does not have a clear plan for Iraq. But as with the question of casualties, this has been a concern for the public in multiple surveys for at least a year (58 percent didn't think President Bush had a clear plan in the September 2003 Pew survey).

Is it Worth It? Was it Right?

The latest ABC/Post survey finds a majority of the public (56 percent) says the war in Iraq wasn't worth fighting - and 47 percent say they feel "strongly" about that, up 10 points from July. Gallup finds the public evenly split on whether people approve of the original decision to go to war (48 percent approve, 51 percent disapprove). Pew found 49 percent who said using force was the "right decision."

It's worth noting, however, that survey questions on whether the war is "worth fighting," the "right thing to do" or a "mistake" seem the most sensitive to events, swinging substantially over time.

The ABC/Post question, for example, has found as many as 70 percent who said the war was worth fighting (after the fall of Baghdad). In the spring, amid the Abu Gharib scandal and Falljuah fighting, the number who told Gallup the war was a "mistake" jumped from 42 percent in April to 54 percent in June. Then the number dropped to 38 percent by the Sept. 3-5 poll, and then moved back up to 47 percent in the Oct. 14-16 survey.

About half (51 percent) in the ABC/Post poll said the war has contributed to the long-term security of the U.S., about the same number as when the question was asked last summer.

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, and survey questions on the war often find higher support if they mention Hussein specifically.

Even after the 9/11 commission reported that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, a substantial minority of the public still believes Saddam Hussein had personal involvement in the 9/11 attacks (31 percent in the latest CBS/Times poll). There has been a major shift on this question. In May 2003, 53 percent told the CBS/Times poll that Saddam was involved with 9/11.

Public Opinion: 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.

Public Opinion: 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.

Public Opinion: 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.

Public Opinion: 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.