Public Opinion in U.S. Turns Against the War
By Jennifer Agiesta and Jon Cohen, Staff Writers
Washington Post: August 20, 2009
A majority of Americans now see the war in Afghanistan as not worth
fighting, and just a quarter say more U.S. troops should be sent to the
country, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Most have confidence in the ability of the United States to meet its primary
goals of defeating the Taliban, facilitating economic development, and
molding an honest and effective Afghan government, but few say Thursday's
elections there are likely to produce such a government.
When it comes to the baseline question, 42 percent of Americans say the
United States is winning in Afghanistan; about as many, 36 percent, say it
is losing.
The new poll comes amid widespread speculation that Gen. Stanley A.
McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, will request more troops
for his stepped-up effort to remove the Taliban from Afghan towns and
villages. That position gets the backing of 24 percent of those polled,
while nearly twice as many, 45 percent, want to decrease the number of
military forces there. (Most of the remainder want to keep the level about
the same.)
In January, before President Obama authorized sending an additional 17,000
troops to the country, public sentiment tilted more strongly toward a troop
increase.
Should Obama embrace his generals' call for even more forces, he would risk
alienating some of his staunchest supporters. Although 60 percent of
Americans approve of how Obama has handled the situation in Afghanistan, his
ratings among liberals have slipped, and majorities of liberals and
Democrats alike now, for the first time, solidly oppose the war and are
calling for a reduction in troop levels.
Overall, seven in 10 Democrats say the war has not been worth its costs, and
fewer than one in five support an increase in troop levels.
Republicans (70 percent say it is worth fighting) and conservatives (58
percent) remain the war's strongest backers, and the issue provides a rare
point of GOP support for Obama's policies. A narrow majority of
conservatives approve of the president's handling of the war (52 percent),
as do more than four in 10 Republicans (43 percent).
Among all adults, 51 percent now say the war is not worth fighting, up six
percentage points since last month and 10 since March. Less than half, 47
percent, say the war is worth its costs. Those strongly opposed (41 percent)
outweigh strong proponents (31 percent).
Opposition to the Iraq war reached similar levels in the summer of 2004 and
grew further through the 2006 midterm elections, becoming issue No. 1 in
many congressional races that year.
By the time support for that conflict had fallen below 50 percent,
disapproval of President George W. Bush's handling of it had climbed to 55
percent, in contrast to the solid overall approval of the way Obama is
dealing with Afghanistan.
But there are warning signs for the president.
Among liberals, his rating on handling the war, which he calls one of
"necessity," has fallen swiftly, with strong approval dropping by 20 points.
Nearly two-thirds of liberals stand against a troop increase, as do about
six in 10 Democrats.
On the GOP side, views are more evenly distributed, as Republicans divide
about equally in support of an increase, a decrease and no change to troop
levels.
Partisan divisions on the handling of the Afghan war are tempered when it
comes to faith in the ability of the United States and its allies to get the
job done. Broad majorities across party lines say they are confident that
the United States will defeat the Taliban and succeed in spurring economic
development.
Far fewer, 34 percent, say they think Afghanistan's national election will
result in an effective government, with just 3 percent "very confident."
The poll was conducted by telephone Aug. 13-17 among a random national
sample of 1,001 adults including users of both conventional and cellular
phones. Results from the full survey have a margin of sampling error of plus
or minus three percentage points; it is higher among subgroups.
Back in July, a software company named Smartronix [1] landed an $18 million contract to build a Web site where taxpayers could easily track billions in federal stimulus money. It was just another part of the Obama administration's ongoing effort to bring transparency to stimulus spending, we were told.
But it seems the drive for transparency doesn't cover the contract itself.
After weeks of prodding by ProPublica and other organizations, the General Services Administration released copies of the contract and related documents that are so heavily blacked out they are virtually worthless.
Don't believe us? Take a look. [2]
ProPublica sought the contract under the Freedom of Information Act to find out what kind of site Smartronix planned to build and to assess whether it justified the cost, which Republican critics of the stimulus plan called "unreal." [3]
Ed Pound, the director of communications for the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, defended the redactions as "legitimate." The Web site Smartronix is to build will replace Recovery.gov [4], the existing stimulus Web portal run by the transparency board.
"I'm not concerned about whether journalists are concerned about this," Pound said. "We have been very transparent."
The GSA declined to comment, but said in its response to ProPublica's FOIA request that such redactions were allowed if material "involves substantial risk of competitive injury" to a contractor.
But the blacked-out information includes material that seems harmless to the company, such as the names and backgrounds of key personnel [2] and the number of visitors expected [5] by the site during traffic spikes.
Some sections of the contract were redacted in their entirety. They include:
- the project's management structure [17];
- something called the "Strategic Advisory Council [18]";
- quality assurance [19] procedures;
- five pages on user experience [20];
- site navigation [21];
- four unidentified pages [22] on which everything, even section headings, have been redacted;
- every single piece of information in the document's pricing table [23], including function, vendor, model, part ID, detail and quantity;
- the contract's warranty agreement [24].
In all, 25 pages of a 59-page technical proposal - the main document in the package - were redacted completely. Of the remaining pages, 14 had half or more of their content blacked out.
The secrecy drew criticism from government transparency watchdogs.
Lucy Dalglish, executive director of Washington, D.C.-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press [6], noted that information labeled "contractor proposed deliverables [7]" had been completely redacted.
"I think it's on the one hand funny, but on the other hand frightening," said Dalglish. "How are you going to keep these people's feet to the fire? You can't evaluate whether or not they delivered on the contract unless you know what they promised to deliver. That's just nuts."
Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics [8], agreed. "It's difficult to make an accurate comparison with any other potential services when you can't even see what the rates are for different types of programming services and job functions," he said. "Sure, you get the overall number, but could there be a better deal out there? We don't know."
A spokeswoman for Smartronix, headquartered in Maryland, confirmed that the company was given the chance to propose redactions in the documents, as allowed by the Freedom of Information Act.
However, Charles Davis, executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition [9], faulted the GSA for allowing the documents to be redacted so extensively.
"The government should have come back at the redaction and said, 'Oh, for the love of God, nobody can tell anything from what you've redacted here,'" said Davis. "If you're going to create a system designed ostensibly to provide greater transparency around a piece of the federal government, it would certainly be a great start to provide some transparency in the contract itself."
Clay Johnson, the director of the Sunlight Labs [10] project at the Sunlight Foundation [11], called the level of redaction in the documents remarkable.
"I think the people have a right to know what their money is being spent on," he said. "We still don't really know what the government's buying here, other than that it's a Web site."
The criticism from the Sunlight Foundation is notable. Smartronix says in its proposal that it has "engaged the Sunlight Foundation as advisers on government transparency [12]," adding that the foundation "is willing to advise Team Smartronix on transparency [2]."
Johnson disputed that characterization. He said that while he had spoken with one of Smartronix's subcontractors and agreed to have Sunlight listed as an adviser, he had never spoken with anyone from the company itself and isn't involved in the contract.
"We're willing to advise anybody on transparency," said Johnson.
ProPublica has filed an appeal with the GSA, arguing that the redactions were excessive and requesting that more of the information in the Smartronix documents be released. We'll let you know what it says.
***
Subject: Thu night Poetry Choir downtown - free
Don't miss this - thursday night -- free from S. Pearl Sharp
http://www.grandperformances.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/season_schedule.show_detail/s_id/308
Peter Harris's Inspiration House Poetry Choir performs at the California
Plaza's Grand Performances / California at the Marina Pavillion.
350 S Grand Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90013
(213) 687-2190
For venue details and directions,
http://grandperformances.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/venue.directions
Poets:Tchikonsase Ajé, Pat Payne, Imani Tolliver, Michael Datcher,
Musicians: María Elena Gaitán (cello), Alan Mark Lightner (steel pan),
Nailah (vocals), and Curtis Robertson, Jr. (guitar).
Both entrancing and exhilarating, some of our city's finest poets will read
their work while musicians respond, blending words, intonations, audience
response and dynamic silence into a sonic tapestry.
Curated by Peter J. Harris, the program will feature sets by a male choir
and a female' choir, culminating in a finale of the Whole, blending the
VoiceMusic of all the gathered poets and virtuosic improvisations by
accompanists.
Expanding Spoken Word into VoiceMusic, this program features poets
Tchikonsase Ajé, Pat Payne, Imani Tolliver, Michael Datcher, Francisco
Letelier, and Bryan Sanders communing with improvisational musicians María
Elena Gaitán (cello), Alan Mark Lightner (steel pan), Nailah (vocals), and
Curtis Robertson, Jr. (guitar). Join the choir, become a witness, make
beauty -- Inspiration House PoetryChoir is mesmerizing and leaves listeners
renewed and recommitted to doing their part to create a humane society.
No comments:
Post a Comment