CNN: Poll: Terrorism fears are fading

[Redskins Diehard]

(CNN) -- As Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama battle over who has the best approach to national security, a new CNN poll finds Americans' concerns about terrorism have hit an all-time low for the post-September 11 era.

A poll finds fewer Americans fear an imminent terror attack than at any time since September 11, 2001.

According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Wednesday, 35 percent of Americans believe a terrorist attack somewhere in the United States is likely over the next several weeks.

The figure is the lowest in a CNN poll since the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people.

Between 2002 and 2006, summertime polls typically showed that a majority of Americans believed that a terrorist attack was likely. Last summer, that figure dropped to 41 percent. This summer, it dropped another 6 percentage points.

The latest CNN poll also indicates that the war in Iraq remains deeply unpopular. Three in 10 voters favor the war, while 68 percent oppose it. Similarly, a third of voters would like to see the next president keep the same number of troops in Iraq that are stationed there now.

For McCain, who is seeking to highlight his national security credentials and has staunchly defended the U.S. presence in Iraq, the latest poll results may not be viewed in a positive light.

"Sen. McCain's greatest strength is in foreign policy, particularly his reputation as the candidate best able to fight the war on terror," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director.

"As the threat of a terrorist attack continues to recede in the mind of the American voter, the state of the economy and other domestic issues are likely to become even more important. That would be good news for Sen. Obama, since the Democrats currently beat or tie the Republicans on every issue except terrorism."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/02/terrorism.poll/index.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Good news.

I put more of the article in that normal because I think the last paragraph is relevant to recent discussions.

[SkinsOrlando]

Not suprised, out of sight, out of mind for many.

[PleaseBlitz]

Once again, the economy is the most important issue.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Well I guess Bush is going to have to fly more buildings into planes to scare everyone into voting Republican.

[SkinsOrlando]

Well I guess Bush is going to have to fly more buildings into planes to scare everyone into voting Republican.

I thought Wal-Mart did it??

[SkinsHokieFan]

Just a good article I found today which should add credibility to this

http://www.newsweek.com/id/143747/page/2

Do We Need a Wartime President

Fareed Zakaria

NEWSWEEK

Updated: 3:13 PM ET Jun 28, 2008

George W. Bush is fond of describing himself as a "war president." And he has made many decisions involving soldiers and battle. But does this make the description an appropriate one? For many people the answer is obvious. We're engaged in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, after all. But Bill Clinton initiated hostilities in the Balkans twice, George H.W. Bush invaded Panama and Iraq, and neither president ever described himself as a "war president."

For a superpower, being involved in a military conflict somewhere is more the norm than the exception. Since 1945, only one president has not presided over combat that engaged American troops—Jimmy Carter. (Between the Bay of Pigs operation and the American "advisers" in South Vietnam, John F. Kennedy doesn't make the cut.) America remains the world's dominant military-political power, so local crises often engage American allies or interests. Britain was in a somewhat similar position in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As a result, British forces were fighting someone, somewhere for most of that period. But Britain did not think of itself as "at war," nor would British prime ministers have described themselves as "wartime" leaders. (In fact, Tony Blair has never described himself as such, even though he presided over British military involvement in the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq.)

America (and before it, Britain) has felt it was "at war" when the conflict threatened the country's basic security—not merely its interests or its allies abroad. This is the common-sense way in which we define a wartime leader, and by that definition the politicians in charge during World Wars I and II—Wilson, Lloyd George, Roosevelt, Churchill—are often described as such. It's not a perfect definition. The United States has been so far removed from most conflicts that even World War I's effects could be described as indirect (incorrectly in my view). But it conjures up the image of a threat to society as a whole, which then requires a national response.

By any of these criteria, we are not at war. At some level, we all know it. Life in America today is surprisingly normal for a country with troops in two battle zones. The country may be engaged in wars, but it is not at war. Consider as evidence the behavior of our "war president." Bush recently explained that for the last few years he has given up golf, because "to play the sport in a time of war" would send the wrong signal. Compare Bush's "sacrifice" to those made by Americans during World War II, when most able-bodied men were drafted, food was rationed and industries were commandeered to produce military equipment. For example, there were no civilian cars manufactured in the United States from 1941 to 1945.

Of course, there are people, including Bush, who would argue that we are at war even in this deeper sense. In its June 23 issue, Fortune magazine asked Sen. John McCain what the gravest long-term threat to the U.S. economy was. He took a while to answer—an 11-second pause, by Fortune's count—but then said, "Well, I would think that the absolute gravest threat is the struggle that we're in against radical Islamic extremism, which can affect, if they prevail, our very existence."

It is by now overwhelmingly clear that Al Qaeda and its philosophy are not the

worldwide leviathan that they were once portrayed to be. Both have been losing support over the last seven years. The terrorist organization's ability to plan large-scale operations has crumbled, their funding streams are smaller and more closely tracked. Of course, small groups of people can still cause great havoc, but is this movement an "existential threat" to the United States or the Western world? No, because it is fundamentally weak. Al Qaeda and its ilk comprise a few thousand jihadists, with no country as a base, almost no territory and limited funds. Most crucially, they lack an ideology that has mass appeal. They are fighting not just America but the vast majority of the Muslim world. In fact, they are fighting modernity itself.

The evidence supporting this view of the threat was already growing by 2003. Scholars like Benjamin Friedman, Marc Sageman and John Mueller collected much of it. I've been making a similar case in columns and a book since 2004. James Fallows wrote a fine cover essay in The Atlantic in September 2006 arguing that if there was ever a war against militant Islam, it was now over and the latter had lost.

These writings never really changed the debate because they fell into a political vacuum. The right wanted to argue that we lived in scary times and that this justified the aggressive unilateralism of George W. Bush. And the left was wedded to the idea that Bush had screwed everything up and created a frighteningly dangerous world in which the ranks of jihadists had grown. But these days, the director of the CIA himself has testified that Al Qaeda is on the ropes. The journalist Peter Bergen, who in 2007 wrote a cover essay in

The New Republic titled "The Return of Al Qaeda," recently wrote another cover essay, "The Unraveling," about the group's decline. The neoconservative Weekly Standard finally recognizes that "the enemy," as it likes to say ominously, is much weaker now, but quickly notes that Bush deserves all the credit. Terrorism is down in virtually every country, including ones that took a much less militaristic approach to the struggle. (Ironically, the two countries where terrorism persists and in some cases has grown as a threat are Iraq and Afghanistan.)

The administration does deserve some credit for its counterterrorism activities. The combined efforts of most governments since 9/11—busting cells in Europe and Asia, tracking money, hunting down jihadist groups—have been extremely effective. But how you see the world determines how you will respond, and the administration has greatly inflated the threat, casting it as an existential and imminent danger. As a result, we've massively overreacted.

Bush and his circle have conceived of the problem as military and urgent when it's more of a long-term political and cultural problem. The massive expansion of the military budget, the unilateral rush to war in Iraq, the creation of the cumbersome Department of Homeland Security, the new restrictions on visas and travel can all be chalked up to this sense that we are at war. No cost-benefit analysis has been done. John Mueller points out that in response to a total of five deaths from anthrax, the U.S. government has spent $5 billion on new security procedures.

Of course, this is actually what Osama bin Laden hoped for. Despite his current weakness, he has always been an extremely shrewd strategist. In explaining the goal of the 9/11 attacks, he pointed out that they inflicted about $500 billion worth of damage to the American economy and yet cost only $500,000. He was describing an LTA, a leveraged terrorist attack. But by the same token, the 9/11 attacks caused an economic swoon because of their scope, and because they were the first of their kind. Since then, each successive terrorist attack—in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Turkey, Spain, Britain—has had a much smaller effect on the world economy.

We are in a struggle against Islamic extremism, but it is more like the cold war than a hot war—a long, mostly peacetime challenge in which a leader must be willing to use military power but also know when not to do so. Perhaps the wisest American president during the cold war was Dwight Eisenhower, and his greatest virtues were those of balance, judgment and restraint. He knew we were in a contest with the Soviet Union, but—at a time when the rest of the country was vastly inflating the threat—he put it in considerable perspective. Eisenhower refused to follow the French into Vietnam or support the British at Suez. He turned down several requests for new weapons systems and missiles, and instead used defense dollars to build the interstate highway system and make other investments in improving America's economic competitiveness. Those are the kinds of challenges that the next president truly needs to address.

In a sense, the warriors are pessimists. In the old days they were scared that communists would destroy America. Today they rail that Al Qaeda and Iran threaten our way of life. In fact, America is an extremely powerful country, with a unique and extraordinary set of strengths. The only way that position can truly be eroded is by its own actions and overreactions—by unwise and imprudent leadership. A good way to start correcting the errors of the past would be to recognize that we are not at war.

Answer: False

[Destino]

Well I guess Bush is going to have to fly more buildings into planes to scare everyone into voting Republican.

He could always bring back the color coded warning system. That kept terrorism in everyone's mind for a good long time.

[Heisenberg]

Wish they would do less overseas and more here at home to ensure our borders and transportation lines are secure so that these fears continue to fade.

Still seems as if there are too many cracks in the armor as far as defending us at home - and yes I know that we'll never be 100% safe.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I thought Wal-Mart did it??

Maybe?

I don't know if Ken knows about that one or not.

[hokie4redskins]

Of course, Bush should be blamed for not allowing another attack on our homeland, thus creating a wave of apathy across the American public.

[Corcaigh]

Not suprised, out of sight, out of mind for many.

I don't know if this is it.

After 9/11 Bush and Blair made the argument that rogue states with WMDs combined with terrorists presented such a threat that meant invading other countries was the best approach. I disagreed but would give them the benefit of the doubt.

Ollie North argued after 9/11 that Al Qaeda had given their best shot, got very lucky, and was not the threat to American society that others claimed.

Seven years on from 9/11, progress on disarmament of the rogue nations who actually have WMDs (N Korea and Libya), no other attacks on the US homeland and no evidence of real threats prevented, make people think that invasion isn't the only successful way to conduct foreign policy. A mix of diplomacy, covert ops and sanctions can get the job done. :2cents:

[SkinsOrlando]

Libya only took us seriously when we flexed some muscle, N.Korea is a toss up as we've been lied to before by them.

[MDRedskinsFan]

He could always bring back the color coded warning system. That kept terrorism in everyone's mind for a good long time.

It still exists, but the level is still yellow/elevated and has been for awhile.

About the poll, this is actually my fear because when we forget, we become less vigilant. These poll results actually make al Qaida happy. Means another window of opportunity will open soon. We can never lose sight of what we face day in and day out.

[Buford T. Justice]

Well I guess Bush is going to have to fly more buildings into planes to scare everyone into voting Republican.

Why would Bush care? He has had his run.

[Spaceman Spiff]

It still exists, but the level is still yellow/elevated and has been for awhile.

About the poll, this is actually my fear because when we forget, we become less vigilant. These poll results actually make al Qaida happy. Means another window of opportunity will open soon. We can never lose sight of what we face day in and day out.

OMG!! The Republicans are making you afraid! Fear mongering!!

[Koolblue13]

Wish they would do less overseas and more here at home to ensure our borders and transportation lines are secure so that these fears continue to fade.

Still seems as if there are too many cracks in the armor as far as defending us at home - and yes I know that we'll never be 100% safe.

That is a dismal attitude. I agree with upping defense over offense, but if you, just as many Americans feel we will never be 100% safe, then we are doing something inherently wrong and need to fix the problem at the core.

[Redskins Diehard]

It still exists, but the level is still yellow/elevated and has been for awhile.

About the poll, this is actually my fear because when we forget, we become less vigilant. These poll results actually make al Qaida happy. Means another window of opportunity will open soon. We can never lose sight of what we face day in and day out.

As long as the people that are supposed to be vigilant and preventing such attacks remain so then that window you talk about will remain closed. When we as a society decide we want to remove tools at their disposal then we will weaken their ability to do their job.

I think it is good that the American public is less afraid of terrorism then they were. One thing that the article mentions which hasn't really be addressed here yet, even though it was the subject of a multiple page thread not too long ago, is that America's decreased fear of terrorism actually does favor a political party

[The King]

Well I guess Bush is going to have to fly more buildings into planes to scare everyone into voting Republican.

Its good to see that someone has the sense to see whats real. Some people are dumb enough to be fearfull over a color code.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Its good to see that someone has the sense to see whats real. Some people are dumb enough to be fearfull over a color code.

I was being sarcastic.

Glad to see that someone really thinks Bush ordered that...

[TMK9973]

Libya only took us seriously when we flexed some muscle, .

Very common misconception fed by the neo-cons as "Proof" that their plan works.

In truth Libya started to change their tone with the US under Clinton more then 2 years before 9/11 in a effort to ease their sanctions.

The Sanctions imposed since the early 90's, along with the White House's agreement to do talks with the leader (As opposed to them just bombing them) resulted in Lybia handing over the 2 suspects in the Pan Am Bombing in early 1999. The promise was that a high level white house person would then meet with Lybia.

This resulted in 4 top level secret meetings where the US outlined what, exactly, needed to be done for the US to lift sections.

It was not the Bush strong arm policies that lead to this happening, it was the policies of sanction and agreeing to talk with our enemy's that made this happen...

http://www.libya-watanona.com/news/n16jan2a.htm

[The King]

I was being sarcastic.

Glad to see that someone really thinks Bush ordered that...

Why not? His family been profiting from war and other cruddy **** for years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

[Heisenberg]

That is a dismal attitude. I agree with upping defense over offense, but if you, just as many Americans feel we will never be 100% safe, then we are doing something inherently wrong and need to fix the problem at the core.

Please enlighten me on how it's possible to 100% safe from terrorism?

It's the same as being 100% safe against another school shooting or any other crazed person killing innocent people - it's impossible. All you can do is make it more difficult for them to carry out a plan and make things like flying planes into buildings near impossible with strict security (which has been done).

However, there' no way to 100% guarantee that a terrorist attack won't happen again - and if you've thought up a plan to prove me wrong I'd love to hear it.

[Redskins Diehard]

Very common misconception fed by the neo-cons as "Proof" that their plan works.

In truth Libya started to change their tone with the US under Clinton more then 2 years before 9/11 in a effort to ease their sanctions.

The Sanctions imposed since the early 90's, along with the White House's agreement to do talks with the leader (As opposed to them just bombing them) resulted in Lybia handing over the 2 suspects in the Pan Am Bombing in early 1999. The promise was that a high level white house person would then meet with Lybia.

This resulted in 4 top level secret meetings where the US outlined what, exactly, needed to be done for the US to lift sections.

It was not the Bush strong arm policies that lead to this happening, it was the policies of sanction and agreeing to talk with our enemy's that made this happen...

http://www.libya-watanona.com/news/n16jan2a.htm

I thought Bush only used strong arm policies... Are you implying that this administration used diplomacy?

[MDRedskinsFan]

As long as the people that are supposed to be vigilant and preventing such attacks remain so then that window you talk about will remain closed. When we as a society decide we want to remove tools at their disposal then we will weaken their ability to do their job.

I think it is good that the American public is less afraid of terrorism then they were. One thing that the article mentions which hasn't really be addressed here yet, even though it was the subject of a multiple page thread not too long ago, is that America's decreased fear of terrorism actually does favor a political party

Well I think confidence goes a long way in being able to prevent future attacks. Our vigilance over the last 7 years has worked. We've thwarted quite a few potential attacks. We should be proud, and know that we can't let up in our awareness of any suspicious activity.

That said, the people who are supposed to be vigilant includes all of us. The intel community alone can't stop everything. If they could, 9/11 might not have happened. The intel community also relies on us to provide them with clues. Especially since both sides of this fight have much of the same technology now, it takes more than a few operations to keep them on the defensive.

[TMK9973]

I thought Bush only used strong arm policies... Are you implying that this administration used diplomacy?

Read the article - 90% of the diplomacy was from the Clinton Adminstration. Bush simply kept the same promises and talks.