U.S. Keen to Avenge Attacks

Americans are eager to avenge last week’s terrorist attack, convinced the assault has fundamentally--and permanently--changed the nation’s way of life. To fight terrorism, large majorities say they would pay higher taxes and sacrifice some personal freedoms, according to a Los Angeles Times Poll.

Nearly seven in 10 believe America is already in a state of war.

“I hate to see some country blown all to pieces just to get a few terrorists,” said 87-year-old Elmer Thornton, a farmer in Elsie, Mich. “But if it has to happen, it has to happen.”

The events of last week, not surprisingly, left the country profoundly shaken, reordering political priorities and undermining many Americans’ sense of personal security. Nearly nine in 10 said their lives were disrupted by Tuesday’s traumatic events. Almost six in 10 of those surveyed said the events will dramatically alter everyday living.

“I think we’re going to be a little bit more aware of what’s going on,” said Roger Allen, 53, an auto factory worker in Goshen, Ind. “I think it will always be in the back of our minds now.”

The survey, conducted Thursday and Friday, gave President Bush extremely high marks for his early handling of the crisis, with 86% approving of his actions. His overall job-approval ratings climbed to 77%. The swell of patriotism across the country also spurred more upbeat views of the economy.

Sampling public opinion at a time of extreme duress can be tricky and sometimes misleading. “In terms of rallying around the flag, it can be quite ephemeral,” said John Mueller, an Ohio State political science professor and author of the book “War, Presidents and Public Opinion.”

But at least for now, Americans overwhelmingly favor retribution and prefer military action to more deliberative legal proceedings.

Saudi militant Osama bin Laden, is considered the prime suspect in the attack. Nearly seven in 10 said the U.S. should respond militarily if Bin Laden and his terrorist organization are found responsible. Only a quarter said Bin Laden should be brought to trial in the United States.

The anger extended beyond the suspected mastermind. If the Taliban ruling party of Afghanistan is found to be harboring Bin Laden--as intelligence officials believe--more than eight in 10 said they would favor a military strike against Afghanistan. That sentiment held even if innocent Afghanis would be killed.

But rather than have it act unilaterally, nearly 60% would prefer that the U.S. coordinate its military actions with foreign allies, the way the previous Bush administration built an international coalition to prosecute the Persian Gulf War.

“There’s strength in numbers,” said Sam Dinch, 41, a tool-and-die maker in Rochester, N.Y. “It may not be as quick, but at least it will show the world the allies are with us on this one.”

Seven in 10 Want Budget for Intelligence to Rise

In the short term, Americans say they are willing to give up a good deal--from personal privacy to a bigger chunk of their paychecks--to restore some of the security they felt before terrorists crashed hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Seven in 10 Americans said the federal intelligence budget should be increased; of those, 85% said they support higher taxes to that end. Nine in 10 of traditionally tax-averse Republicans agreed.

But most balked at cutting government benefits such as health care and farm subsidies, or dipping into the Social Security fund. Only 36% said they would favor higher intelligence spending at the expense of such benefits, with 52% opposed.

Fifty-six percent said they were concerned that new measures enacted to fight terrorism would result in an erosion of some civil liberties. But 61% said that was a necessary sacrifice.

“People may be infringed upon in terms of their privacy,” Adrienne Frydenger, 54, a teacher in rural Carlinville, Ill., said in one of more than two dozen follow-up interviews. “I hate to see that. But I think it’s necessary.”

A substantial majority of those surveyed agreed, though they shared her ambivalence.

Half Say Monitoring of Internet Should Increase

More specifically, half of respondents said that to fight terrorism, government agencies should be given broader powers to monitor the Internet and read private e-mail. Fifty-four percent said the government should be allowed to tap telephone lines and monitor cell phone conversations.

Nearly seven in 10 said law-enforcement officers should be allowed to randomly stop people who fit the theoretical description of a terrorist--a controversial police tactic known as racial profiling. Both whites and, notably, non-whites were overwhelmingly in favor of the controversial proposal, with 68% of each group agreeing.

The responses were typical of surveys taken in the immediate aftermath of events like Tuesday’s terrorist strikes. After the bombings in Oklahoma City and at the Olympic Games in Atlanta, polls found huge majorities favoring such steps as domestic spying and installation of airport-like metal detectors at shopping mall entrances.

“I think if you’re going to do away with terrorism in the United States, you have to let the authorities do what they think is best,” said Gladys Masters, 83, a retired nursing assistant in Grand Junction, Colo. If people have done nothing wrong, she added, they “have nothing to worry about.”

But Bryan Sandnas, among the 29% opposed to racial and ethnic profiling, wondered where it would end. “You’re profiling this type of person today. Tomorrow, it may be another type of person,” said the 40-year-old electrician in rural Virginia, Minn.

Nearly two in three said Tuesday’s events left them shaken. Concern was focused sharply on the nation’s airports; more than eight in 10 criticized security there.

“I’ve always been a firm believer in home protection, the right to bear arms and all that,” said Jerry Hayes, 30, who owns a printing shop in Enterprise, Ore., near the border with Washington and Idaho. But travel now has him worried. “I know they’re really starting to push a lot more safety measures, but it happened so easily,” Hayes said. “It just seems it could happen easily again.”

Ninety-five percent of those asked said they favor new security measures at the nation’s airports--such as a ban on electronic tickets and curbside check-in--even if they cause inconvenience.

Despite the heightened jitters, however, more than half those surveyed said they did not expect Tuesday’s events to become commonplace. Four in five expressed confidence in the ability of U.S. intelligence agencies to protect the nation from future terrorist attacks.

“I don’t think we’ll allow it to keep going on,” said Chris Tofolo, 33, who is in the pharmaceutical business in Raleigh, N.C. “I think we’ll act now to rectify what they’ve done.”

That was one of a mix of contradictory sentiments turned up by the survey, a reflection perhaps of the welter of emotions--shock, horror, disbelief, hope--that have collided in the last few days.

For instance, although expressing future faith in the country’s spy services, just more than half those sampled said the attack was something that should have been foreseen by intelligence agents. About two-thirds said it was only a matter of time before a terrorist assault like the one Tuesday.

“It just seems they fell down big time,” said Katie Cartwright, a 42-year-old dental assistant in Fargo, N.D. “Within a matter of a couple days, they had figured out who it is [authorities suspect], where they were living, what they were doing. Why weren’t they paying attention to that before?”

As for President Bush, his 77% approval rating is by far the highest of his young administration; even 64% of Democrats approved of the job he is doing.

Regarding whether he should have returned immediately to Washington after the terrorist attacks--rather than zigzag across the country--85% said the president appropriately followed the protective advice of the Secret Service.

But, for all the glow--just a scant 8% disapprove of Bush’s handling of the crisis--history shows such adulation is almost inevitably fleeting.

President Carter’s approval ratings soared in the early days of the Iranian hostage crisis, climbing nearly 30 percentage points and peaking at 58% in late January 1980. Eleven months later, Ronald Reagan beat Carter in a landslide.

In January 1991, President George Bush’s approval ratings hovered around 90% after he successfully rolled back the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. A year later, he was voted out of office.

‘True Test Will Come in the Next Few Days’

George W. Bush “was elected to be president in a time of peace and prosperity, not commander in chief in a time of war and recession,” said Marshall Wittmann, a Republican analyst. “The true test will come in the next few days.”

The patriotic sentiments that boosted Bush’s fortunes also colored views of the economy. Although just more than half those surveyed believe the U.S. has entered a recession, only about one in 10 expects a serious contraction. The overwhelming majority said they felt personally secure in their finances and the same percentage believe that world stock markets will snap back from their decline after Tuesday’s assault.

Overall, 60% of those surveyed believe the country is on the right track--a big jump from April, when only 44% were optimistic about the way things were going.

However transitory such sentiments might be, one thing was clear: Terrorism has surged to the forefront of America’s concerns. Eighty-seven percent now rate terrorism a “very serious” problem facing the nation, compared with just more than half in an August 1998 survey; 11% called it a “somewhat serious” problem.

The Times Poll, conducted under the supervision of Director Susan Pinkus, interviewed 1,561 adults nationwide over two days beginning Sept. 13. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

*

Associate Poll Director Jill Darling Richardson and Claudia Vaughn, data management supervisor, contributed to this report.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Response to Terrorism

Do you approve or disapprove of the way President Bush is handling the terrorist attack and its aftermath?

Approve strongly: 64%

Approve somewhat: 22%

Disapprove somewhat: 5%

Disapprove strongly: 3%

Don’t know: 6%

***

In order to curb terrorism in this country, do you think it will be necessary for the average person to give up some civil liberties?

Necessary: 61%

Not necessary: 33%

Don’t know: 6%

***

How much confidence do you have in American intelligence agencies’ ability to protect the United States?

A lot: 35%

Some: 45%

Not much: 15%

None: 4%

Don’t know: 1%

***

Do you think the U.S. should retaliate against Osama bin Laden’s group through military action, or pursue justice by bringing him to trial in the U.S.?

Military action: 69%

Bring him to trial: 25%

Don’t know: 6%

***

Before the terrorist attack on Tuesday, did you feel that the United States was immune to a terrorist attack of this magnitude, or did you feel it was just a matter of time before something like this happened?

U.S. immune: 21%

Matter of time: 66%

Never thought about it (volunteered): 10%

Don’t know: 3%

***

Do you think that the terrorist attack last Tuesday will result in a fundamental change in the way Americans live their daily lives, or do you think that Americans will soon go back to business as usual?

Fundamental change: 57%

Business as usual: 39%

Don’t know: 4%

***

How much, if any, has the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon shaken your own personal sense of safety and security?

Great deal: 31%

A good amount: 32%

Not too much: 26%

Not at all: 10%

Don’t know: 1%

***

Do you personally worry about terrorism when you are in public places? (IF YES) Is this the result of the recent attack or did you feel this way before?

Worry: result of recent attack: 23%

Worry: felt this way before: 12%

Don’t worry: 64%

Don’t know: 1%

***

In the future, how common do you think such terrorist acts will be in this country?

Common: 39%

Not common: 53%

Don’t know: 8%

Civil Liberties and Security

Would you approve or disapprove of. . .

. . .giving government agencies broader powers to tap telephone lines and monitor cell phones and other wireless communications?

Approve: 54%

Disapprove: 40%

Don’t know: 6%

***

. . .giving government agencies broader powers to monitor Internet communications and to read all private e-mail?

Approve: 50%

Disapprove: 45%

Don’t know: 5%

***

. . .allowing law enforcement to randomly stop people who may fit the profile of suspected terrorists?

Approve: 68%

Disapprove: 29%

Don’t know: 3%

***

Authorities have taken measures to tighten airport security in the U.S. due to the terrorist attack last Tuesday. These include thorough searches of all planes and airports; no curbside check-in or check-in from hotels; allowing only passengers to pass through security checkpoints; a ban on all knives; uniformed police patrols of airports; no more use of electronic tickets; checks of passengers using hand-held metal detectors; and armed marshals aboard airplanes. This may result in longer check-in times. Do you approve or disapprove of these security measures?

Approve strongly: 83%

Approve somewhat: 12%

Disapprove: 4%

Don’t know: 1%

***

Will having more airport security procedures help you feel safer about flying, or less safe, or won’t it make a difference?

Much safer: 51%

Somewhat safer: 23%

Less safe: 2%

No difference: 23%

Don’t know: 1%

U.S. Intelligence Agencies

Sen. John McCain and others have alleged that the country’s intelligence operations have become less effective over the past decade. They say this is the result of fewer covert operations abroad and lack of expertise to analyze intelligence data. Should support of American intelligence operations be a higher national budget priority than it is now, a lower budget priority, or is it about the right level of priority now?

Higher: 71%

Lower: 2%

Right level: 19%

Don’t know: 8%

***

(ASKED OF THOSE WHO SAID HIGHER PRIORITY)

Would you support funding intelligence operations at a higher level. . .

. . .even if that means higher taxes for all Americans?

Yes: 85%

No: 9%

Depends (volunteered): 3%

Don’t know: 3%

***

. . .even if that means reduced government benefits, such as health care, farm aid or dipping into the Social Security fund?

Yes: 36%

No: 52%

Depends (volunteered): 6%

Don’t know: 6%

Retaliation

If it is determined that the Taliban ruling party in Afghanistan is harboring Osama bin Laden, would you support the U.S. and its allies retaliating with military action against Afghanistan, even if it could result in civilian casualties, or would you oppose that?

Support strongly: 67%

Support somewhat: 14%

Oppose: 12%

Don’t know: 7%

Personal Reactions

Thinking about the day of the attack and how it affected your life, was your daily routine extremely disrupted, somewhat disrupted or not disrupted at all?

Extremely disrupted: 50%

Somewhat disrupted: 36%

Not disrupted: 14%

***

(ASKED OF THOSE WHO SAID THEIR LIVES WERE DISRUPTED)

How was it disrupted? (ACCEPTED UP TO TWO REPLIES; TOP THREE RESPONSES SHOWN)

Very emotional/distraught: 40%

Watched news coverage all day: 37%

Canceled all daily plans: 14%

***

Now that it has been a few days since the terrorist attacks, what one word best describes how you are feeling about the situation?

(TOP THREE RESPONSES SHOWN)

Anger/frustration: 26%

Sorrow: 21%

Devastation/horror: 11%

***

Notes: Numbers might not total 100% where more than one response was accepted or some answer categories are not shown.

Times Poll results are also available at

www.latimes.com/timespoll.

HOW THE POLL WAS CONDUCTED

The Times Poll contacted 1,561 Americans nationwide by telephone Thursday and Friday. Telephone numbers were chosen from a list of all exchanges in the nation. Random-digit dialing techniques were used so that listed and unlisted numbers could be contacted. The entire sample was weighted slightly to conform with census figures for sex, race, age, education and region. The margin of sampling error for the entire sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points. For certain subgroups the error margin might be somewhat higher. Poll results can also be affected by other factors such as question wording and the order in which questions are presented.