Editor’s note: This is another in a series of monthly “WND/WENZEL POLLS” conducted exclusively for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies.
Nearly two of three Americans surveyed in a new poll believe the United States is more likely to be targeted in an attack – either by a hostile military or a terrorist organization – because of the policies of President Obama.
A majority also disagree with his newly announced policy against using nuclear weapons against nations or groups that would attack the U.S. with biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction.
President Obama bowing to Japan’s emperor
Citing the possibility of either a terrorist attack or a military assault on U.S. shores, the poll, the first national assessment to address the issue, asked, “Do you think the current policies of the Obama administration are making it more or less likely that the U.S. will suffer such an attack?”
Forty-six percent responded much more likely and another 13.6 percent somewhat more likely. Only about 28 percent said somewhat less likely or much less likely.
Even a combined 28 percent of Democrats conceded an attack was somewhat more or much more likely. The categories included more than 92 percent of Republicans and more than 60 percent of independents.
The poll conducted by Fritz Wenzel of Wenzel Strategies for WND also revealed that a plurality strongly disagrees with the president’s promise that rules out using nuclear weapons against enemies who attack the U.S. with a biological or chemical weapon.
The WND/Wenzel Poll was conducted by telephone April 16-18 using an automated telephone technology calling a random sampling of listed telephone numbers nationwide. It carries a margin of error of 3.29 percentage points.
“That a majority of Americans disapprove of President Obama’s recent policy pronouncement that the U.S. would not retaliate with nuclear weapons if attacked by an enemy without nuclear capability is no big surprise and underscores a perception that Obama is too quick to apologize, compromise, and bow to other world leaders,” Wenzel said in an analysis of the results.
“This poll finding, when combined with the two other disturbing factors in world politics – America’s deteriorating relationship with Israel and its impotent reaction to Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons – is priming the pump for a major political upheaval that could be triggered by the next serious international conflict,” he said.
Obama bowing to Saudi Arabian leader
“Asked what they thought the new policy would mean for America, a plurality – 44 percent – said they think the new policy conveys weakness to other countries that will invite biological and chemical attacks against the United States. Women said they were more concerned about the policy than men, as did Republicans and independent voters,” he said.
Obama’s efforts to bow to foreign leaders have earned him the criticism of WND columnist Thomas Sowell.
“As a private citizen, Barack Obama has a right to make as big a jackass of himself as he wants to,” Sowell recently wrote. “But, as president of the United States, his actions not only denigrate a nation that other nations rely on for survival, but raise questions about how reliable our judgment and resolve are – which in turn raises questions about whether those nations will consider themselves better off to make the best deal they can with our enemies.”
Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, columnists and best-selling authors, joined the criticism.
“When you are down bowing to another leader, it is a very hard position in which to lead the free world. Obama’s way over his head, and it shows,” they wrote after an Obama trip to the Far East, where he bowed to the emperor of Japan.
“Obama has shown a penchant for prostrating himself before foreign leaders, giving visual representation to how he is seeking to submit America to the desires of foreign powers,” they wrote.
“Obama bent so low it approached the level of groveling to the diminutive son of the man who ordered the bombing of Pearl Harbor.”
Wenzel also cited the belief that Obama’s positions are bringing on an attack.
“Sixty percent of Americans said they think it is likely Obama’s new policy pronouncement will result in attacks on the U.S.,” he said. “A majority of both men and women agreed more attacks are likely on the way because of Obama’s stance on the issue.”
When asked to rate Obama on military issues, 59 percent gave him negative marks. Wenzel called it “yet another vote of no confidence on one of the most important tasks that any president is charged with carrying out.”
He suggested Obama is more interested in scoring “political points” than solving problems.
“While Obama has trotted around the country touting his cure for a health-care system that a majority of Americans didn’t believe needed fixing, the two major concerns in the minds of the country – the economy and national security – are worsening.
“No wonder this latest survey shows that Obama’s overall job-approval rating now stands at only 40 percent,” Wenzel said.
“What is remarkable to me is that, in the face of harsh judgments about his job performance and the likelihood that his own party is headed for an absolute drubbing in the November congressional elections, Obama doesn’t appear to care at all,” he continued.
“This man once hailed as a consummate politician and one most sensitive to the ebbs and flows of public opinion now appears deaf and blind to the same. He won’t pay a direct price for this remarkable change in behavior, but all indications are that there will be plenty of Democratic Party pain to share if he maintains the same political course full speed ahead.”
A previous poll by the same organization revealed in November that two of three Americans also expect an Islamic suicide-bomb attack on American soil within six months.
“More than one-third of respondents – 36 percent – said they think it is ‘very likely’ that such an attack will take place in the next six months, while another 29 percent said it is ‘somewhat likely,'” he reported at the time.
See detailed results of survey questions:
I am now going to ask you a series of short statements about President Obama’s decision to limit U.S. retaliatory response against those countries who use nonnuclear weapons of mass destruction to attack the United States. Please tell me which statement is most likely to occur as a result of Obama’s new policy.
Thinking about the possibility of either a terrorist or military attack against the United States by another country, do you think the current policies of the Obama administration are making it more or less likely that the U.S. will suffer such an attack?
If you’d like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll.