http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/11/bush.terror/index.html More say Iraq has reduced U.S. safety Bush's approval rating edges up slightly after London attacks Tuesday, July 12, 2005; Posted: 5:33 a.m. EDT (09:33 GMT) (CNN) -- The number of Americans who believe the war in Iraq has made the United States less safe from terrorism spiked sharply after last week's terror attacks in London, according to the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. President Bush's approval rating, meanwhile, edged up slightly, according to the poll of 1,006 Americans conducted Thursday through Sunday. The poll shows the president's approval rating rose to 49 percent -- up 3 percentage points from a poll taken June 29-30. That change was within the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Just over two weeks ago, a poll taken June 24-26 showed Bush's approval rating matching his all-time low of 45 percent, first reached in a poll taken March 21-23. (Full story) Addressing a crowd Monday at the FBI training academy in Virginia, Bush vowed that the United States and free countries around the world will not cower in the face of terrorism. (Full story) Although the latest poll suggests Americans are still split about his leadership, the percentage of respondents who disapprove of the way he is handling his job has fallen to 48 percent from 53 percent in the June 24-26 poll and 51 percent in the June 29-30 poll. And in the aftermath of last week's terror attacks in London that killed more than 50 people, 12 percent of those asked believe an act of terrorism is very likely in the next several weeks -- three times the percentage who said so in a poll conducted June 16-19. Forty-three percent said an attack is somewhat likely, up from 31 percent in that June poll, and 9 percent said a terror strike in the United States is not at all likely -- half the percentage who said it was not at all likely in June. Thirty-five percent said an attack is not too likely, compared to 45 percent in the June poll. The proportion of respondents who said they believe the war in Iraq has made the United States less safe from terrorism jumped to 54 percent in the latest poll. That is a dramatic increase from 39 percent in the poll conducted June 29-30, a week before the London attacks. Of the 489 people asked that specific question, 40 percent believed the Iraq war had made the United States safer -- down from 44 percent in the previous poll. The other 517 poll respondents were asked whether the Iraq war had made the world safer. Forty percent said it had, and 52 percent said it made the world less safe. Those two questions on Iraq in the latest poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points, two points higher than the rest of the poll questions. Opinions had not changed much on the topic of who is winning the war on terrorism, a question asked of all 1,006 poll respondents. Thirty-four percent said the United States and its allies are winning -- down 2 percentage points from the June 24-26 poll; 21 percent felt the terrorists are winning the war -- up 1 point from the previous poll. Both changes were within the margin of error. Forty-four percent felt that neither side was winning, up from 41 percent in the June 24-26 poll. The number who felt it was worth going to war dropped slightly. Forty-four percent believed it was worth it -- down from 46 percent in the June 24-26 survey. But 53 percent said it was not worth going to war, up 1 point since June 24-26. (Full story) U.S. military officials said Monday that two U.S. Marines were killed a day earlier during combat operations west of Baghdad, raising the number of U.S. troops killed in the war to 1,753. (Full story)
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/8024 Iraq Support Caused London Attack, Say Americans (Angus Reid Global Scan) – Many adults in the United States believe London was targeted by terrorists because of Britain’s participation in the coalition effort, according to a flash poll by Gallup released by CNN. 56 per cent of respondents believe the attack took place mostly because the European nation backed the war in Iraq. On Jul. 7, four blasts in London killed at least 52 people and injured 700 more in an apparent terrorist attack. Investigators say the explosions at three underground stations occurred "almost simultaneously," suggesting that timing devices may have been used. A fourth bomb exploded inside a double-decker bus. 64 per cent of respondents consider the attack a major setback in the global effort against terrorism. On Jul. 9 in a BBC Radio 4 interview, British prime minister Tony Blair rejected suggestions that the attacks were a response to Britain’s presence in Iraq, saying, "September the 11th happened before Iraq, before Afghanistan, before any of these issues, and that was the worst terrorist atrocity of all. (...) I think this type of terrorism has very deep roots. It’s only when you start to pull it out by the roots that you would deal with it." In his weekly radio address, U.S. president George W. Bush urged Americans to "remain alert, and to report any suspicious activity to your local authorities." 41 per cent of respondents believe the London blasts represent the beginning of a sustained terrorist campaign against the U.S. and its allies. Polling Data Just your best guess, do you think the terrorists attacked London today mostly because Great Britain supports the United States in the war in Iraq, or mostly for other reasons? Mostly because of support 56% Mostly for other reasons 37% No opinion 7% Which comes closest to your view of today’s terrorist attacks in London: they are a major setback that indicates that the terrorists are winning the war on terrorism; they are a major setback, but do not indicate that the terrorists are winning the war on terrorism; or they are a minor setback that does not have any long-term significance in the war on terrorism? Major setback, terrorists winning 16% Major setback, terrorists not winning 48% Minor setback 30% No opinion 6% Do you think today’s attacks do—or do not—represent the beginning of a sustained terrorist campaign against the United States and its allies that will continue for the next several weeks? Yes, represent 41% No, do not 50% No opinion 9% Source: Gallup / CNN Methodology: Telephone interviews with 624 American adults, conducted on Jul. 7, 2005. Margin of error is 4 per cent.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1081392,00.html Why Iraq Has Made Us Less Safe ... By DANIEL BENJAMIN Sir Ivor Roberts, Britain's Ambassador to Italy, declared last September that the "best recruiting sergeant for al-Qaeda" was none other than the U.S. President, George W. Bush. With the American election entering its final furlongs, he added, "If anyone is ready to celebrate the eventual re-election of Bush, it is al-Qaeda." The remarks, made at an off-the-record conference, were leaked in the Italian press, and Sir Ivor, facing the displeasure of his Foreign Office masters for committing the sin of candor, disowned the comments. But now, as the soot settles in the London Underground, the words hang again in the air. It is, of course, bad manners to point the finger at anyone but those responsible for the killings in London. They shed the blood; they must answer for it. But as the trail of bodies that began with the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 continues to lengthen, we need to ask why the attacks keep coming. One key reason is that Osama bin Laden's "achievements" in standing up to the American colossus on 9/11 have inspired others to follow his lead. Another is that American actions--above all, the invasion and occupation of Iraq--have galvanized still more Muslims and convinced them of the truth of bin Laden's vision. The conflict between radical Islam and the West, like all ideological struggles, is about competing stories. The audience is the global community of Muslims. America portrays itself as a benign and tolerant force that, with its Western partners, holds the keys to progress and prosperity. Radical Islamists declare that the universe is governed by a war between believers and World Infidelity, which comes as an intruder into the realm of Islam wearing various masks: secularism, Zionism, capitalism, globalization. World Infidelity, they argue, is determined to occupy Muslim lands, usurp Muslims' wealth and destroy Islam. Invading Iraq, however noble the U.S. believed its intentions, provided the best possible confirmation of the jihadist claims and spurred many of Europe's alienated Muslims to adopt the Islamist cause as their own. The evidence is available in the elaborate underground railroad that has brought hundreds of European Muslims to the fight in Iraq. And the notion that the West would enhance its security by occupying Iraq has proved utterly illusory. Coalition forces in Iraq face daily attacks from jihadists not because Saddam Hussein had trained a cadre of terrorists--we know there was no pre-existing relationship between Baghdad and al-Qaeda--but because the U.S. invasion brought the targets into the proximity of the killers. Those who bombed the Madrid commuter lines last year were obsessed with Iraq. They delighted in the videotape that showed Iraqis rejoicing alongside the bodies of seven Spanish intelligence agents who were killed outside Baghdad in November 2003; they spoke of the need to punish Spain (their adoptive country) for supporting America; they recruited others to fight in the insurgency. They began work on their plot the day after hearing an audiotaped bin Laden threaten "all the countries that participate in this unjust war [in Iraq]--especially Britain, Spain, Australia, Poland, Japan and Italy." It had been the first time Spain had been mentioned in an al-Qaeda hit list. We may learn that the London bombers were, like the Madrid crew, a bunch of self-starter terrorists with few or no ties to bin Laden. U.S. and partner intelligence services have done such a good job running to ground members of the original group that there may be no connection with the remnants of al-Qaeda's command on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. We may also learn that the killers belong to a network being built by Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi, who has emerged in Iraq as bin Laden's heir apparent. Or we may find that the bombings were engineered by returnees from Iraq. Muslims from Britain, France, Germany and elsewhere--along with several thousand from Arab countries--have traveled to Iraq to fight in what has become a theater of inspiration for the jihadist drama of faith. A handful are known to have trickled back to Europe already. Western intelligence services fear that more are on the way and will pose a bigger danger than the returnees from Afghanistan in the 1980s and '90s, the global jihad's first generation of terrorists. The anxiety is justified; the fighters in Iraq are, as the CIA has observed, getting better on-the-job training than was available in al-Qaeda's camps in Afghanistan. Britain has been on al-Qaeda's target list since the group's earliest days in the 1990s; the country's appointment with terror was ensured. But now, because of the invasion of Iraq, it faces a longer and bloodier confrontation with radical Islam, as does the U.S. America has shown itself to be good at hunting terrorists. Unfortunately, by occupying Iraq, it has become even better at creating them.
Oh, sorry dude, my bad, I just thought I would copy & paste articles that addressed the same topic. What can I say? This is the kind of stuff I come across, all bad news, rarely an uplifting one. Speaks to the current predicament of humanity, doesn't it?
Uh-oh, here we go again with "you voted for Bush twice", so I got what was coming to me, right? IIRC, the world was still in deep **** before Bush ever got there, right? Yah, I know, I know, it got worse under him, I am not that happy about it either.
