Hot Buttons: Talk show topics

THE WAR ON TERRORISM

The American public is maintaining a high level of interest and engagement in the war against terrorism despite the passage of time, the ebb and flow of events far from home and their own presumed self-absorbed, short attention span.

"Do the folks at home pay any attention to what's going on over here?" Jim Jorgensen, a sergeant with the 101st Airborne, asked a UPI reporter recently while on a combat mission in the Afghan mountains. "They aren't losing interest, are they?"

Jorgensen's answers are "yes" to the first question and an unequivocal "no" to the latter.

In poll after poll since Sept. 11, when al Qaida terrorists killed more than 2,800 people in hijackings and attacks on buildings in New York and Washington, Americans have expressed overwhelming support for the troops and their mission to hunt down and stamp out terrorism.

A full 91 percent of 900 registered voters questioned March 12-13 in a FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll supported the war; 91 percent of 1,008 adults questioned in an ABC News/Washington Post poll in early March also favored the war, and 63 percent believed it was going "fairly well."

Majorities were also recorded in various polls on expanding the war to Iraq, if necessary, to oust the regime of President Saddam Hussein, and in leading wars in the Philippines or in other countries where the United States believes terrorists are hiding.

"What we've seen is that there is a little less interest in the daily (news) updates, but we haven't seen any flagging of support for the war effort," said Carroll Dougherty, editor with the Pew Research Center for People and the Press. "People aren't as riveted to daily developments over there as they were in October, but they are still supportive. And what is key, is that every survey we've seen suggests that people suspect it (the war) will be a long haul, and that it will require months if not years. There is a great deal of patience out there ... the resolve is still there."

Pew -- an independent opinion research group that studies attitudes toward the press, politics and public-policy issues -- regularly surveys the public to measure attentiveness to major news stories, charts trends in values and fundamental political and social attitudes. Surveys it has made or studied since the events of Sept. 11 show a renewed sense of nationhood among Americans and increased trust in government. It has also found a new willingness to use troops abroad.

"By nearly two-to-one (61 percent-32 percent)," said one report, "the public said in October that the best way to prevent future terrorism is to be active in world affairs."

-- How closely are you following the war on terrorism?

(Thanks to UPI White House Correspondent Richard Tomkins)

ATTACK IRAQ?

No formal war plan has been approved yet, but The New York Times reports the Bush administration is turning to consideration of an attack on Iraq next year -- intended to end the reign of Saddam Hussein by involving up to 250,000 mostly American troops.

The new direction abandons any plans for a confrontation with Saddam Hussein this fall and reflects the conclusion that an encouragement of a coup would be unlikely to succeed.

The planning now anticipates extensive use of bases for American forces in Turkey and Kuwait, the report said, with Qatar, Oman and Bahrain playing important roles. Only Great Britain would help such an operation by contributing troops. Saudi Arabia would still need to extend permission to the United States to use airspace adjacent to Iraq but would not be expected to allow U.S. forces to be launched from bases in that country.

One reason to postpone any attack to next year is that by then the Strategic Petroleum Reserve will be filled close to capacity, a buffer against any oil disruptions because of the Iraq operation, the report said.

The military requirements would be for an attack in an urban environment, not to drive an entrenched enemy from a large occupied area as was the case in the Gulf War, military officers told the Times.

-- Would you support a full-scale attack on Iraq? Why or why not?

PEDOPHILE PRIESTS

Comments by Chicago's Cardinal Francis George on priests who engage in sexual encounters with teenage girls stirred the ire of feminists and others, prompting some to call for his resignation.

Following a meeting last week at the Vatican between U.S. cardinals and the pope, George said sanctions against priests who violate celibacy and chastity vows should distinguish between sexual predators who prey on young children and the priest who gets drunk and engages in a sex act "with a 17- or 16-year-old young woman who returns his affection."

"He's saying that there's a difference between sexual abuse of a young child and a priest getting a little drunk and having sex with a 16- or 17-year-old girl," Catherine Caporusso Hartman, vice president of the Chicago chapter of the National Organization for Women, told the Chicago Sun-Times. "He's trying to minimize things when he should be showing that he takes all of this seriously. Now he's trying to make a subset of sexual abuse not as serious as another."

In calling for George's resignation, Hartman said when it comes to statutory rape laws, George "doesn't seem to understand why there are stiffer penalties in case of a person in authority like a priest."

The cardinals were summoned to the Vatican to talk about ways of dealing with pedophile priests in light of recent revelations about defrocked Boston priest John Goeghan. In the past, the church has shipped problem clerics from diocese to diocese, in many instances without revealing the nature of the problem behind the transfer.

In making his remarks about Geoghan, whom George described as a "moral monster," the cardinal also acknowledged a man engaging in sex with an underage girl is still a crime. But, he said, that when it comes to reforming one's life, it's "different" for the serial sexual abuser than it is for someone who has made just one mistake.

In a telephone interview from Rome, George told WMAQ-TV he understands why some people are "upset" with him: "If I really did think that it didn't matter about abusing young women, I should resign. I don't think I said that. I know I didn't mean it."

* What do you think?