Washington Week: Student Voices (O)

Protester, Saint Mary's College debate Iraq War
By Katie Kohler
The Observer (Notre Dame)
04/13/2007

(U-WIRE) SOUTH BEND, Ind. — After anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan's speech on campus earlier in the day, the debate about the legitimacy of the Iraq War continued last night in the Stapleton Lounge at Saint Mary's College.

A panel of three Saint Mary's professors — Linda Berdayes, Patrick Pierce and Joseph Miller — spoke to a house full of students and faculty members to conclude "A Day of Reflection" on the war.

Sister Kathleen Dolphin moderated the panel, co-sponsored by the Justice Education Program and the Political Science Department.

Berdayes, a professor in the Communication and Performance Studies department, addressed the role of the media in the events leading up to the war, as well as their influence throughout the armed conflict.

"Journalism now is not objective. It is subjective from the very beginning," she said. "There is some bias always because journalists frame stories from how much to cover, what to emphasize, what to make the foreground and what to make the background."

Her focus was on the manipulative nature of present-day journalism and its effects on the American public.

"Journalism is dangerous during wartime in matters of what stories are covered and how," she said. "Propaganda is often a prerequisite of war. Information is a weapon used on all sides."

The most distressing journalistic shortcoming, however, is not a marked political orientation but rather the failure to obtain all the correct information, she said.

"Liberal or conservative bias is beside the point. What you see, read and hear may not be true," Berdayes said.

She also talked about a study that addressed the three major misconceptions of the war, as a result of disinformation, she said. The first untruth was the belief in the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The second misconception, Berdayes said, had people thinking many other foreign countries supported America's war effort. And, finally, the notion that Saddam Hussein was directly linked to the September 11 attacks constitutes the third and most common misunderstanding about the war in Iraq. These misconceptions alone illustrate the undeniable influence — positive or negative — of the media on the American people, Berdayes said.

"The stakes are high, and we cannot be naive," she said. "We must be able to see the bias."

Patrick Pierce, a political science professor, addressed the constitutionality of the war and the accountability of the sitting Bush administration.

Initially, however, he revisited the common misconceptions of the American public, shaken by the "incredible percentages of citizens" that believe untrue and unsubstantiated rumors.

He also emphasized the importance of activism, on either end of the political spectrum.

Reflecting on the President's accountability, Pierce said that looking at the past will help dictate the future of the conflict.

"In terms of administration, the last thing Bush wants to do is look backward, but backward is important because it pinpoints accountability of our elected officials," he said. "Regardless of what situation we face politically now, an important part of a democratic state is to hold officials accountable positively and negatively. If the president is held accountable for negative actions, he loses power."

The misuse of intelligence was another key point in Pierce's argument.

"It is clear that what led up to the war was a manipulation of intelligence," he said. "Did [the Bush administration] lie? Disregard the truth? Make a good fake argument? Probably a mix of both."

The implications and results of investigating the past for answers to the above questions may determine the electorate's future decisions, he said.

Pierce also said the continued American occupation is detrimental to further progress in both countries.

"Our mere presence has made it very difficult for a stable democracy to be established no matter what," he said. "The whole situation was created by poor decision-making leading up to the war. There are no good choices for stability." The final speaker was Joseph Miller, a psychology professor, who spoke about the impact of the Iraqi conflict on Iran.

"Presently, there is extensive evidence that Bush, Cheney and neoconservative advisers are trying to justify an attack in Iran," he said. "They are using the same tactics as Iraq. This time, however, Congress, media and groups of all sorts are speaking out, demanding unnecessary and dangerous preparations with Iran be replaced with diplomacy."

Miller addressed the importance of avoiding the repetition of the Iraq War in Iran.

"If we launch an attack in Iran, the tragedy will be even more intense," he said.

Miller divided his presentation into four parts, starting with a discussion of the essential information that isn't being acknowledged. He went on to the essential actions that are not occurring, the unfolding provocative actions that could spark a war and the options facing the United States.

"There is no evidence Iran poses a nuclear threat in the near future, so there is no need to provoke war," he said. "Unproven information is as unreliable as the claims with Iraq."

Miller also questioned Bush's willingness to explore diplomatic avenues with North Korea, but not with Iran.

"The conflict with North Korea is much more advanced. Why can't we use diplomacy in Iran?" he said. "Many individuals believe — myself included — that the only way we can make sure war is not launched in Iran is impeachment proceedings."

[ Back to Student Voices ]