Harry, the point is not whether the polls agreed with me or vice versa.
While I often highlight or bold a point within the story that I appreciate
or want to emphasize, I also did not delete portions that did not fit my
point of view. I am much more likely to do excerpts on commentary, hoping
the reader will read the entire piece themselves, but the reader should be
able to read the whole story for poll results independently. Note that in
this piece the PIPA poll numbers were emphasized differently than they were
in the piece I posted yesterday, as they were at the ABC news site. This
journalist included polls from Chicago and Gallup. The bottom line is that
most Americans still support the President, whether they should or not, and
even if they cannot say why other than, like Britney Spears said, we just
should.
It also is a matter of depth perception, whether the Bush2 administration
also "listens" to polls, since they most assuredly do and conduct their own,
regardless of prior denials on anti-Clinton style. The President should be
mindful that he not lose the confidence of more Americans at this difficult
time of new directions and examination about priorities and values. A 20
point decline is significant since April; however, everyone knew the post
9/11 highs would come down, regardless of his performance or being in tune
with the public. He represents the American public as a whole body, not
just the special interests who have his ear. If he forgets that, he's in
worse trouble.
- KWC
Harry wrote: Whenever I see definitive polling results, I am reminded of a
poll conducted on Bork.
People were asked two questions.
"Would you favor appointing a Supreme Court Judge who opposed choice?"
"Would you favor appointing Judge Bork to the Supreme Court?"
The result was a solid majority against Bork's appointment.
Then, the questions were reversed.
A solid majority was in favor of appointing Bork.
Much depends on how the questions are written, the order in which they are
asked, the general tenor of the actual questions, and other considerations
of which I'm certainly not aware.
Be glad that the answers perhaps came out the way you wanted, but don't bet
the family farm on their credibility.
-----------------------------------------------
Karen wrote:
>Reckless behavior has its price, too. Some interesting conclusions here
>affirming the American public preferring a multilateral, cooperative
>effort in foreign policy, rebuking the Bush2 administration's till now
>unilateral cowboy approach. One of the simplest lessons of 9/11 is that
>we should keep talking - and listening - to each other. - KWC
>
>U.S. Public Counsels Cooperation Two Years After 9/11
>by Jim Lobe, Published on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 by the Inter Press
>Service
>
>WASHINGTON - Two years after the Sep. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New
>York and the Pentagon, the U.S. public favors a distinctly less unilateral
>strategy than the one pursued by President George W. Bush, found a major
>new poll released Tuesday.
>
>A very strong majority -- nearly 80 percent -- said they believed that
>U.S. policy in the Islamic world is creating conditions that make it
>easier for terrorist groups to grow there. Some 81 percent of more than
>1,200 respondents told pollsters from the University of Maryland's Program
>on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) that working ''more closely''
>with other countries was a key lesson learned from Sep. 11, as opposed to
>Washington acting ''on its own more'' to fight terrorism.
>
>Strong majorities also called for the administration to pursue ''more
>cooperative approaches'' with other nations and rely more on economic aid
>and diplomacy to fight terrorism and less on military means, according to
>the survey, conducted by California-based Knowledge Networks between Aug.
>26 and Sep. 3.
>
>The poll was released by PIPA, which has tracked U.S. public opinion on
>foreign policy for some 15 years, on the eve of the second anniversary of
>the Sep. 11 attacks and just as the Bush administration appears to have
>begun canvassing for support at the United Nations for greater
>international participation in peace-keeping and reconstruction efforts in
>Iraq. The administration, which had insisted on going to war in March
>without authorization from the U.N. Security Council, has concluded that
>it must now return to the Council in order to persuade other countries to
>send troops and other forms of assistance.
>
>In a nationally televised address Sunday, Bush said other countries had a
>''duty'' to provide help and, at the same time, announced that his
>administration needed some 87 billion dollars in emergency aid over the
>next 13 months to sustain U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
>
>The total, which shocked even Bush's fellow Republicans in Congress
>worried about Washington's exploding budget deficit, was more than twice
>what had previously been estimated and assumes that other countries will
>contribute some 30 billion additional dollars to the effort. Some
>commentators have said that the administration's new approach to the U.N.
>constitutes an implicit admission that the unilateralism with which it
>pursued the war is no longer tenable. If so, the administration may be
>moving toward the mainstream of U.S. public opinion, which has long called
>for a more multilateral approach to its war on terrorism and in Iraq.
>
>If anything, according to the poll, which asked the randomly chosen
>respondents more than 60 in-depth questions, the public's embrace of
>multilateralism appears to have deepened. Asked which was the ''more
>important lesson of September 11'', 81 percent of respondents chose ''the
>U.S. needs to work more closely with other countries'' instead of ''the
>U.S. needs to act on its own more to fight terrorism'', with which 16
>percent of respondents agreed.
>
>In June 2002, the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations (CCFR) asked the
>same question in its own comprehensive survey. At that time, 61 percent of
>respondents agreed with the first alternative and 34 percent chose the
>more unilateralist approach.
>
>While the new poll found that about two-thirds of respondents approved of
>Bush's anti-terrorist efforts in a general sense, they were more critical
>of specific policies, according to Steven Kull, PIPA's director, who
>attributed the relatively high approval ratings to the residue of a
>''rally-round-the-president effect'' that dates from Sep. 11.
>
>Some 54 percent of respondents said the administration has been ''too
>assertive'' in relation to other countries, while 58 percent called on the
>administration to put ''more emphasis on diplomatic and economic methods''
>in dealing with threats in the Islamic world, as opposed to ''military
>methods''.
>
>In what Kull said was ''the most dramatic finding'', the survey found that
>76 percent of the public said they feel no safer from the threat of
>terrorism now than they did in the immediate aftermath of Sep. 11. Only 24
>percent said they felt safer. On the other hand, asked whether the
>administration's efforts over the past two years at reducing the risk of a
>terrorist act had made them feel safer, 46 percent agreed. In response to
>that question, 53 percent said they felt no safer.
>
>At the same time, a very strong majority -- nearly 80 percent -- said they
>believed that U.S. policy in the Islamic world is creating conditions that
>make it easier for terrorist groups to grow there.
>
>Two-thirds of respondents said they thought feelings by Muslims against
>U.S. policy had worsened over the last two years, while 60 percent said
>they thought ''a majority of people in the Islamic world think U.S.
>policies in the Middle East make the region less stable''. Only 35 percent
>disagreed, insisting that most Muslims overseas think U.S. policies
>enhance Middle Eastern stability.
>
>Perhaps most striking, almost three-quarters of respondents assume that
>the majority of overseas Muslims ''share many of al-Qaeda's feelings
>toward the U.S.'', even if most of those who have a similar perspective do
>not support their methods. Two-thirds of respondents also said they
>believe that most people in the Middle East want Washington ''to play a
>less prominent and influential role'' in the region and reduce its
>military presence there.
>
>A similar majority agreed that the U.S. military presence in the region
>increases the likelihood of terrorist attacks against the country, and
>that it indeed should be reduced over the next decade. By contrast, 32
>percent and 31 percent, respectively, said the U.S. military presence
>reduces the chances of a terrorist attack and that its military profile
>there should be increased.
>
>In a rebuke to the administration's plans to reform the Middle East,
>unilaterally if necessary, some 58 percent of respondents agreed that,
>''The U.S. is playing the role of world policeman in the Middle East more
>than it should''. Thirty-nine percent disagreed.
>
>A majority of the public rejects the view that tensions between the West
>and the Islamic world are inevitable, although the proportion of
>individuals who take that view has increased over the past two years.
>
>While a minority of 36 percent agreed with the assertion, ''Because
>Islamic religious and social traditions are intolerant and fundamentally
>incompatible with Western culture, violent conflict is bound to keep
>happening'', that marked an increase from 26 percent when PIPA asked the
>same question in November 2001. Similarly, 60 percent of respondents
>insisted that Muslims generally ''have needs and wants like those of
>people everywhere, so it is possible for us to find common ground'', while
>68 percent subscribed to that view two months after the Sep. 11
>attacks. But close to 80 percent of respondents said Washington should
>make greater efforts to improve relations with people in the Islamic world.
>
>In a separate poll released Tuesday, the Gallup organization said the
>public's confidence in the government's ability to handle international
>problems has fallen to levels close to what they were just before Sep.
>11. Before the attacks, 14 percent of respondents expressed a great deal
>of confidence in the government's capability, a total that rose to 36
>percent in October 2001. But today, the figure has fallen back to 18
>percent, Gallup said.
>
>Copyright 2003 IPS-Inter Press Service
>
>
> >Other Things You Might Do With $87 Billion
> >By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
> >
> >You can actually get a few things done with $87 billion, the amount that
> >President Bush has asked Congress to appropriate for expenditures
> >related to the military occupation and reconstruction of Iraq.
> >
> >For example:
> >
> >The World Health Organization (WHO) and other UN bodies estimate the
> >cost of providing treatment and prevention services in developing
> >countries for tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and malaria at $12 billion a year.
> >
> >The WHO Commission on Macroeconomics and Health estimated that donor
> >investment of $27 billion a year, including expenditures on TB, AIDS and
> >malaria, as well as to eliminate death and suffering from other
> >infectious diseases and nutritional deficiencies, could save 8 million
> >lives a year. That's eight million lives. A year.
> >
> >The UN Development Program estimated in 1998 that the annual additional
> >cost of achieving basic education for all was $6 billion.
> >
> >Prefer to spend some or all of the money at home? Even in the United
> >States, where the dollar doesn't go as far, $87 billion can perform some
> >pretty impressive feats.
> >
> >For example, according to Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, it
> >would only cost $6 billion a year to provide health insurance to all
> >uninsured children in the United States. You can provide Head Start and
> >Early Head Start to all eligible children for $8 billion annually. You
> >can reduce class size to 15 students per teacher in all first-, second-
> >and third-grade classrooms for $11 billion a year.
> >
> >For $87 billion, you could eliminate the backlog of maintenance needs at
> >national parks nearly 15 times over. You could cover more than half the
> >Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-estimated 20-year investment needs
> >to ensure safe drinking water throughout the United States. You could
> >more than double the annual capital expenditures needed to improve
> >public transportation in the United States, according to estimates of
> >the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
> >You could provide almost half of the overall funding EPA says is needed
> >to provide clean watersheds in the United States, including through
> >wastewater treatment, sewer upgrades and nonpoint source pollution
control.
> >
> >It just so happens, as the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities
> >points out, that $87 billion is almost exactly what all departments in
> >the federal government combined spend annually on education, training,
> >employment and social services. So you could fund that for a year.
> >
> >If you looked at the $87 billion as found money, and wanted to do
> >something unorthodox, you could eliminate California's state budget
> >deficit two times over.
> >
> >And, you would still have enough left over to enable the Detroit Tigers
> >(baseball's worst team) next year to field a team full of Alex
> >Rodriguez's. (Rodriguez, at $25 million a year, is baseball's
> >highest-paid player. A full roster -- 25 players -- of Rodriguez's would
> >cost $625 million.)
> >
> >We accept that having imposed devastating economic sanctions on Iraq for
> >a decade and twice waged war on the country, the United States has a
> >major obligation to support reconstruction in Iraq. But three-quarters
> >of the president's request is for military expenses, not reconstruction,
> >the request follows a previous $79 billion appropriation, additional
> >requests are certain to follow, and much of the money being spent on
> >reconstruction is being funneled as poorly scrutinized corporate welfare
> >to Bush and Vice President Cheney's buddies at companies like
> >Halliburton and Bechtel.
> >
> >If one steps back for a moment, it is evident that there is a long list
> >of expenditures that would do more to improve the world, and more to
> >improve U.S. security if reasonably defined, than what the president
> >proposes to do in Iraq.
> >
> >A strange circumstance has evolved in the United States. Military
> >expenditures can be justified at almost any level. ("Whatever it takes
> >to defend freedom.") Politicians don't say, "Whatever it takes to make
> >sure every child in this country has a decent education." Or, "Whatever
> >it takes to deal with the worst health pandemic in the history of the
> >world (HIV/AIDS)." When it comes to the military, there is neither a
> >sense of proportion, nor of trade offs.
> >
> >This state of affairs is a tribute to the military contractors and
> >political leaders who have ridden to power by instilling fear in the
> >populace. It can be traced in no small part to campaign contributions
> >and lobbyist influence, but the problem runs much deeper than that. Fear
> >has penetrated deep into the culture.
> >
> >But the administration's overreach in Iraq now offers an opportunity to
> >create a new sense of priorities. It is now even more apparent than it
> >was before the war that Iraq posed no security threat to the United
> >States. And the sums of money requested by the administration -- and
> >more will be coming -- are so extraordinary that they practically demand
> >consideration of alternative expenditures.
> >
> >After all, you really can do quite a bit with $87 billion.
> >
>_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
