ABCnews poll: Most Dismayed, But Few Call for Rumsfeld's Resignation

May 7, 2004— Most Americans express dismay about the abuse of Iraqi detainees by U.S. soldiers, and the nation divides on whether the Bush administration sought at first to investigate the scandal — or to cover it up.

Yet more than six in 10 also see these incidents as isolated, and say they should not cost Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld his job.

Three-quarters of the public are closely following the story, a level of attention reserved for some of the most gripping news events. Two-thirds favor criminal charges against the soldiers involved; fewer — but still a majority — 54 percent, say punishment should go up the chain of command to higher-level officers who allowed a breakdown of training and discipline.

Still, given current knowledge, most say the buck should stop before it gets to Rumsfeld. Twenty percent in this ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll say he should resign, while many more, 69 percent, say he should retain his position. Even most Democrats — hardly the administration's fondest fans — say Rumsfeld should stay.

Views may be changeable based on the facts that develop and the level of attention the issue commands.

Anger about the incidents is highest among people who are following the story most closely, and much lower among those who haven't paid it much attention.

Similarly, while relatively few in any group say Rumsfeld should go, calls for his departure are least prevalent among people who haven't tuned in to the controversy.

And people who think abuse has been widespread, rather than isolated, are three times more likely to say Rumsfeld should resign (37 percent of them say so, compared with 12 percent of those who think the incidents are isolated.)

Assessments of George W. Bush's response to the scandal are more positive than negative, but with many withholding judgment: Forty-eight percent approve, 35 percent disapprove and 17 percent have no opinion. In a positive sign for the president, his approval rating for handling the situation peaks, at 54 percent, among those who are following it most closely.

Bush might be helped by apologizing, perhaps more directly than he has to date: Fifty-nine percent of Americans say he should apologize directly to the Iraqi people. Nearly half of Republicans say so, as well as six in 10 or more Democrats and independents.

A danger for Bush, as for Rumsfeld, is the possibility of revelations indicating the abuse was more widespread. Among people who think it's isolated, 62 percent approve of the way Bush is handling it; among those who think it's widespread, his approval falls to 25 percent. People who think the abuse is widespread also are far more likely to think the administration initially tried to cover it up.

The partisan, 50-50 nation rears its head on questions of the administration's initial response to the scandal. With huge differences by political affiliation, the public divides evenly, 42-42 percent, on whether the administration acted quickly enough in investigating these reports when they first became known, or moved too slowly.

It's almost an identical division, 44-43 percent, on whether the administration initially sought to investigate the scandal or cover it up. Again there are vast partisan differences in these views: Republicans and Democrats are a mirror image, with independents split down the middle.

War Views on the war itself are largely stable, and not particularly positive. A new low, 38 percent, say the administration has a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq (it was close to that, 42 percent, last fall). Six in 10 continue to say the United States has gotten bogged down there. And the public still divides about evenly, now 49-47 percent, on whether the war was worth fighting, a division that's been more or less steady in ABC/Post polls since February.

Isolated? As noted, the public by 2-1, 62 percent to 31 percent, thinks the apparent abuse represents "a few isolated incidents" rather than something more widespread. The sense that it's isolated peaks among Republicans, at 75 percent, and it's much higher among whites (68 percent) than among non-whites, who divide evenly on the question.

Impact of Scandal There is broad agreement, though, that the scandal is a legitimate one. Only seven percent of Americans say they're "not concerned" about it. Instead 39 percent are "concerned," a quarter "upset" and another quarter downright "angry."

Anger peaks, at 34 percent, among those who are following the scandal most closely, and it's lowest, 14 percent, among those who are not following it closely. Similarly, among those who are following it very closely, 26 percent say Rumsfeld should resign; among those not following it closely, this drops to 10 percent.

This ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone May 5-6, 2004, among a random national sample of 802 adults. The results have a 3.5-point error margin. Field work by TNS of Horsham, Pa.

Rec'd this a.m. via email. Proves that measures were being taken by the military long before the actual story broke.

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Abuse and the Army
The military, not CBS, discovered the outrages at Abu Ghraib.

Thursday, May 6, 2004 12:01 a.m.

As President Bush and everyone else in America has said, any abuse of Iraqi prisoners is "abhorrent" and should be punished. Yet it seems to us that an overlooked story here, and ultimately the most telling, is the degree to which the U.S. military is investigating itself and holding people accountable.This isn't a popular thought just now, with the media and politicians in one of their bonfire phases. Every accusation against U.S. troops is now getting front-page treatment. Like reporters at a free buffet, Members of Congress are swarming to the TV cameras to declare their outrage and demand someone's head, usually Donald Rumsfeld's. "System of abuse" and "cover-up" are being tossed about without any evidence of either. The goal seems to be less to punish the offenders than to grab one more reason to discredit the Iraq war.

For a sense of proportion, let's rehearse the timeline here. While some accusations of abuse go back to 2002 in Afghanistan, the incidents at Abu Ghraib that triggered this week's news occurred last autumn. They came to light through the chain of command in Iraq on January 13. An Army criminal probe began a day later. Two days after that, the U.S. Central Command disclosed in a press release that "an investigation has been initiated into reported incidents of detainee abuse at a Coalition Forces detention facility." By March 20, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt was able to announce in Baghdad that criminal charges had been brought against six soldiers in the probe.By the end of January, meanwhile, Major General Antonio Taguba was appointed to conduct his separate "administrative" probe of procedures at Abu Ghraib. It is his report, complete with its incriminating photos, that is the basis for the past week's news reports. The press didn't break this story based on months of sleuthing but was served up the results of the Army's own investigation.

By February, the Secretary of the Army had ordered the service's inspector general to assess the doctrine and training for detention operations within all of CentCom. A month after that, another probe began into Army Reserve training, especially military police and intelligence. Those reports will presumably also be leaked and reported on, or at least they will be if they reach negative conclusions.

This is a cover-up? Unlike the Catholic bishops, some corporate boards and the editors of the New York Times or USA Today, the military brass did not dismiss early allegations of bad behavior. Instead, it established reviews and procedures that have uncovered the very details that are now used by critics to indict the Pentagon "system." It has done so, moreover, amid a war against a deadly insurgency in which interrogation to gain good intelligence is critical to victory--and to saving American lives.

None of this is to dismiss or rationalize the abuse reports. Accountability has to run beyond the soldiers immediately responsible and up the Army and intelligence chains of command. The Abu Ghraib procedures were clearly inadequate to a situation in which interrogators were given so much control over the fates of individual prisoners. Especially in a war on terror that will be long and require effective interrogation, this is unacceptable.

Reprimands have already been issued and careers ended, but courts martial can't be ruled out. President Bush's explanation to Arab media yesterday may help our public image, especially given that their own governments rarely admit mistakes. But the best way to impress Iraqis about U.S. purposes is to show that Americans guilty of abuse are being punished, and with more than letters of reprimand.

To start impugning the entire Army and Pentagon, however, is both wrong and dangerous. The majority of American soldiers are professional, disciplined and are risking their lives to win a war. (Note to those who want to revive the draft: If this could happen in today's highly trained volunteer force, imagine the risks in Senator Chuck Hagel's Army of conscripts.)

Another bizarre notion is that Abu Ghraib happened because the Pentagon decided to hold "enemy combatants" under other than "prisoner of war" status. Those detainees are still given Geneva Convention treatment, as well as visits by the Red Cross. The Pentagon has avoided formal Geneva Convention status because it doesn't want al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners to be able to hide behind "name, rank and serial number." As terrorists who attacked civilians and didn't wear a uniform, they also don't deserve the privileges of real soldiers. In any case, the soldiers who posed in those Abu Ghraib photos were clearly too thick to know any of this.The military has its faults and bad actors, but over the decades it has shown itself to be one of America's most accountable institutions. The Abu Ghraib episode is another test of its fortitude. But the political class would do well to heed Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman, who said yesterday that "this immoral behavior in no way eliminates the justice of our cause in Iraq."

Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Com

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.