Last Wednesday the Clinton administration sent its foreign policy and defense heavyweights to Ohio State for a “forum” to explain and defend its position to use military force against Iraq if the nation continues to refuse compliance with United Nation’s resolutions. But Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary of Defense William Cohen, and National Security Advisor Sandy Berger’s message was virtually silenced next to the strong voice of some disgruntled students yelling, “One, two, three, four, we don’t want your racist war.”

In many instances, the blatant disrespect demonstrated toward such high-ranking representatives of the United States would not only be inappropriate, but also ineffectual. Albright couldn’t even finish her prepared statement before these students drowned out her voice in their outcries. The mediator’s plea for silence was short-lived.

In a different context, these uninhibited laments literately screamed at members of the Cabinet would have drawn more disgust than accord. But the situation in the Gulf, coupled and intensified by Clinton’s disregard for opinions dissenting from the position of the administration, demand those opposing to do so drastically.

When entrenched pathways of communication between citizens and their leaders can be used efficaciously, in this case asking provocative questions in a restrained manner, then that more propitious approach should be followed. But it has become increasingly clear that the Clinton administration is deaf to any dissenting opinion on this issue, refusing to acknowledge opposition even exists.

In a public statement following the altercation in the Ohio State arena, Clinton went as far to say that those who were shouting do not represent a significant portion of American public opinion. First of all, a significant portion of U.S. citizens do have moderate to serious reservations about using military force against Iraq. Even more importantly, it doesn’t matter how statistically significant that dissent is. Our Constitution was written to protect the minority. Their opinion matters.

Yet even though this “forum” was staged as an open conversation between the American people and the administration, in actuality, its purpose was more propaganda than discussion. A joint effort between the Clinton administration and CNN, it was orchestrated to present a united American front behind the U.S.’s stance against Iraq. Why CNN? Because Saddam watches it. The idea was to put together a rally in the Midwest, conventionally supportive of the President, and show on live TV during Iraqi primetime just how united the States are behind the President. Too bad he tried to convince us of what he miserably failed to convince Saddam.

Although in all likelihood this group of students didn’t expect the prolonged national attention they ended up receiving, they were aware they expressed an opinion heretofore effectively ignored by the Clinton administration. They not only exercised their Constitutional right but also their civic responsibility to question their leaders. The way the students went about expressing their aversion to the administration’s policies might not have been the most dignified, but it certainly conveyed their message.

Ultimately the poor judgment call was made by the administration. In a country which not only allows but reveres free speech, the president cannot expect to contrive such a staged public relations stint without incident. The irony just screams: In an attempt to mount a unified front against an autocratic regime, a democratic nation was willing to employ non-democratic means. Although Clinton might disagree, what was originally a “forum” only in name, turned out to be a win for democracy.

Popularity: unranked [?]

 Print This Post

This entry was posted on Friday, October 5th, 2001 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Opinions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.