Hillary's Challenger Crucified on a Cross of Gold

Posted by Scott Ritter at 11:28 AM on September 11, 2006.

Late this August, I had the pleasure of sharing a podium with a most remarkable man, Jonathan Tasini. Most Americans won't know his name, which is a shame, because he represents the only democratic challenge to the autocratic tenure of New York's junior Senator, and erstwhile 2008 Presidential contender, Hillary Rodham Clinton. In fact, outside of New York City and its immediate environs, Jonathan Tasini is almost a complete unknown. This intelligent, articulate person who has spelled out a solid "get out of Iraq" plan (and who has endorsed a sound "don't get into Iran" strategy as well) cannot get his candidacy injected into the mainstream of New York electoral policies not because he is a "kook" or purely derived from the fringes of the body politic, but rather for the most disturbing of reasons: He can't raise enough money. In the end, it appears that the only standard that counts in New York (and elsewhere in America, I dare say) is the Gold Standard. Bring enough money to the table, and lo and behold, your candidacy becomes instantly credible.

Compare and contrast the Senatorial bid of Jonathan Tasini with that of fellow Democrat Ned Lamont in neighboring Connecticut. Like Tasini, Lamont was a relevant unknown whose name recognition factor among most citizens in Connecticut was non-existent. Earlier this month Ned Lamont mounted a successful challenge to Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman, knocking the three-term incumbent (and one-time Vice Presidential nominee) out of consideration for reinstatement in a fourth term as a democrat (Lieberman may yet challenge Lamont as an independent). Many observers point to the growing anti-war mood sweeping through America, including places such as New York and Connecticut, and Ned Lamont's ability to successfully tap into this sentiment as representing the main reasons for his stunning upset victory. Others will point to Joe Lieberman's unapologetic support not only for the Iraq War, but his unabashed embrace of the republican Bush administration's foreign and national security policies in a time when America is increasingly divided along partisan lines. These factors did contribute to Ned Lamont's viability in opposition to Lieberman. But the only thing that made Lamont viable as a candidate was his ability to underwrite his own election bid to the tune of some four million dollars.

Like Jonathan Tasini, Ned Lamont's status as a relative unknown made it virtually impossible for him to generate funds from donations sufficient to sustain a viable state-wide candidacy. Like Tasini, Lamont ran against a powerful incumbent who pulled in major support from the Democratic Party establishment. Unlike Joe Lieberman, who strongly (if wrongly) believes in the merit of his position, Hillary Clinton has taken a chameleon-like posture on Iraq that is steeped not in any strongly held belief that what we are doing in Iraq is right, but rather how her stance positions her in electoral policies.

So while Joe Lieberman may well have the blood of over 2,600 American service members (and many tens of thousands of Iraqis) on his hands for wrongly supporting an unjustifiable war, Hillary Clinton is bathing in this blood having placed her personal political aspirations above those of the men and women who so ably serve America in the Armed Forces, and whose lives it seems are just another chip to be gambled away in this game we call American politics.

If anything, Hillary Clinton is even more vulnerable than Joe Lieberman from the perspective of her support for the war in Iraq. But Jonathan Tasini will never get the chance to mount a State-wide electoral assault on Hillary Clinton, despite the fact that he has articulated policy options on Iraq, Iran and the issue of America's complex relations with the rest of the world that easily trump Ned Lamont (and New York's own Hillary Clinton) in terms of their consistency, depth of insight into the issues at hand, and strong moral base. The reason for this travesty? Jonathan Tasini can't reach into his own pocket and buy himself a seat in the US Senate like Ned Lamont could, and did.

It seems that in the game that is American politics, money trumps ideas every single time. There is simply no way that the Democratic Party could justify its staunch defense of Joe Lieberman during the primary election. The man had walked away from the Democratic Party on critical issues that touched on the very value system that serves as the bedrock of American society. While Lieberman and his advocates point to his voting record on domestic social issues in defense of his so-called "Democratic credentials," one can't speak of serving the domestic interests of America when, in supporting the war in Iraq, the so-called "Global War on Terror," and the upcoming war with Iran, you deviate from the rule of law as set forth in the Constitution of the United States, which enshrines both the letter and spirit of international law laid down in the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions.

Lieberman endorsed the shredding of these laws when he endorsed the invasion of Iraq. Lieberman supported torture and illegal imprisonment, as well as the violation of American Constitutional rights through his unabashed support of warrantless wiretaps. Lieberman was a candidate the Democratic Party should have repudiated, and yet it dispatched its "big guns," including former President Bill Clinton, to attempt to rally the vote. Hillary Clinton is as bad, or even worse, than Joe Lieberman on the issue of Iraq, the War on Terror, Iran, and defending American civil liberties as guaranteed by the Constitution. But as with Lieberman, the Democratic Party will continue to whole-heartedly support her as a New York Senator and as its (probable) Presidential nominee in 2008, not because she stands for anything worth supporting, but because she can generate the one thing Jonathan Tasini cannot: money, and lots of it. Her war chest currently stands at some $44 million, and she has the ability to generate even more, not only for her candidacy, but for the Democratic Party as a whole.

This is a trend that reared its ugly head last June, when the Democratic Party threw its support behind California Representative (and incumbent) Jane Harman, despite the fact that she had crowed about her being "the most Republican Democrat around." There was a viable alternative to Jane Harman in the person of Marcie Winograd. However, like Jonathan Tasini, Marcie couldn't raise the money to take on the Harman machine. The Democratic Party refused to allow any of its elected officials to endorse the Winograd candidacy not because Jane Harman was such a staunch supporter of Democratic values, but rather because she could generate millions of dollars that could fill the coffers of the Democratic Party for the 2006 election. Jane Harman won the primary, and America and the Democratic Party is worse off for it.

The Tasini case would be a travesty based upon the money issue alone. But what makes it worse is that it is demonstrative of an even darker reality lurking here in America today. The victory of Ned Lamont in Connecticut gave rise to the notion of the political viability of the "anti-war" movement in America. But the fact is, Ned Lamont's money didn't tap into any genuine "anti-war" movement, but rather a ground swell of "anti-Iraq war' feeling that has more to do with America trapped in a quagmire in Iraq than it does with any morals-based stance that the Iraq war was wrong from its very inception. The numbers, which the anti-war crowd cites as proof that there is a viable constituency for their message, just don't add up. Yes, over 60% of Americans articulate a negative stance against the war in Iraq today. But some 50% of these very same Americans continue to believe that Iraq had (and continues to have) weapons of mass destruction. And the majority of Americans form similarly uneducated points of view about Iran's nuclear program, the threat posed by Iran, and other complex issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Israel's recent war with Hezbollah. For a nation that is supposed to be so "anti-war" today, I find that with the exception of Iraq (and to a lesser extent Afghanistan), many Americans are chomping at the bit to become militarily involved in even more dangerous adventures of war.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Americans aren't so much anti-war as they are anti-loosing. In the period of time that has followed the events of September 11, 2001, Americans have yet to collectively reflect on what occurred that day, why it happened, and how we can make sure it never happens again. Rather than defining and articulating a fact-based assessment of what happened on September 11, 2001, and then formulating and implementing a reasoned approach to dealing with that problem, America rushed off to a war in Afghanistan that was more about feeding the American peoples need for revenge than it was about executing sound policy. The proof of this explodes in our face on a daily basis as Afghanistan continues to degenerate as a society, the Taliban is resurgent, and Osama Bin Laden and those who perpetrated the attack on America remain at large, larger than ever and still plotting to do America harm. We have done nothing to address the root cause of the events of 9/11, and in our rush for the visceral satisfaction that comes from watching innocent people killed by American bombs on live TV we have only fed the very system and cycle of events that produced those who brought us harm five years ago.

We compounded this gross error in Afghanistan by immediately linking the 9/11 attacks with a wider Middle East policy objective of regional transformation (i.e., regime change), falsely connecting Saddam Hussein's Iraq with Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda. We allowed the irrationality of this linkage to feed the ignorance-based fear of the American masses of that which they do not understand (pretty much everything that happens outside the borders of the United States), and created weapons of mass destruction where none existed which the phantom alliance of Hussein and Bin Laden were plotting to use against us. We went to war against Iraq, not only in violation of international law and everything we as Americans claim to represent, but also in a manner which certified as real and accurate every negative image of America and Americans cited by Bin Laden and others for why they had to fight us. Our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq created far more terrorists and terror than they eliminated.

One can sit down with Jonathan Tasini and discuss these and other issues at length. He is extremely articulate and displays an in-depth understanding of not only the issues, but more importantly, the underpinning of American democratic values and ideals that put these issues into perspective. Jonathan Tasini is a genuine American patriot whose anti-war stance is not based upon anything other than a realization that the war in Iraq was a war that never should have been fought to begin with. He is not against a strong American defense, far from it. Rather, he recognizes that the foundation of American defense begins not with the deployment of American forces abroad, but rather an embracing of basic principles of morality and law here at home. His stance is far removed from the so-called "anti war" stance of Need Lamont, who simply tapped into the anti-loosing psyche of Americans while continuing to promote irresponsible military adventurism in Lebanon by Israel, and Iran by the United States.

But don't simply blame Ned Lamont for this. He bought his position with his own money. Blame the electorate of the State of Connecticut, and for that matter America as a whole, which continues to wallow in ignorance of the world we live in, and indifference about what it truly means to be an American. I ask any reader to walk into a bar, restaurant, ball game, NASCAR race, high school or college and poll who there has read and understands the Constitution of the United States and what it represents and stands for. The results will be depressing in the extreme -- and if my experience is any judge, the so-called "anti-war" left will poll as badly (or worse) than the NASCAR crowd.

The only way America can deviate from its current internal rot is for men and women of intelligence and ideals to stand up and insert themselves into the process of representative democracy. Through debate, dialogue and discussion Americans can challenge wrongly held perceptions, empowering themselves to engage in fact-based analysis rather than faith-based beliefs. But the status quo ante fears such exposure to such enlightenment. Hillary Rodham Clinton refuses to debate Jonathan Tasini. Her actions are defended in the media as reasonable, since Tasini cannot bring millions to the table. I tell you here and now that any debate between Tasini and Clinton would not only expose her for the shallow fraud she is, not just on Iraq, but across the spectrum of issues, foreign and domestic, but would reveal to the voters of New York that they do have an option, a choice, when it comes to who will best represent their needs and interests in the Senate of the United States. It is unfortunate that Jonathan Tasini does not have the personal wherewithal to buy himself a debate with Hillary Clinton. But then again, if he could, he probably would be more like Ned Lamont than Jonathan Tasini. And when it comes to representing the real will of the people of New York, I prefer the middle class reality of Tasini over the moneyed privilege of Lamont and Clinton any day of the week.

Today many Americans are complaining about stolen elections, citing the rise of the electronic voting machine and the demise of the verifiable paper ballot. But the act of voting which is so manifestly corrupted by the lack of accountability and verification afforded by electronic voting means nothing if in the end the electoral system is formulated so that only those Americans who can buy their way onto a ballot are presented before the American people. Across the United States, in Republican and Democratic races alike, there are hundreds if not thousands of Jonathan Tasinis and Marcie Winograds trying to do their civic and patriotic duty by running for office. There are candidates from other parties who have insights, views and opinions which the American voting public would be immensely enriched by if they could only be exposed to them. And yet these true potential representatives of "We the People" are silenced by an electoral system geared more toward preserving moneyed power interests than doing what is best by the American people.

If America cannot find a better way to run elections, there is no hope for us to get back on track toward a more prosperous and peaceful existence, for we simply doom ourselves to a singular discussion of issues as defined by those who seek to hold and retain power, and a corporate-controlled media which has sold its soul in order to acquire and maintain access to those who exercise this power.

Decisions will be made based upon ideological dogma, not facts. If the war in Iraq has taught us anything, it is that facts do matter. But increasingly the only people who are interested in the facts are those like Jonathan Tasini who operate outside the system of greed, power and corruption that defines American politics today. Simply put, if Americans cannot find a way to publicly finance elections, thereby breaking the choke hold enjoyed by special interests and their bought and paid for politicians, then the hope and promise of representative democracy in America will be but a fiction historians will ponder when they weigh in on the demise of a dream begun in 1776, but which died unfulfilled because the voices of Americans like Jonathan Tasini were crucified on an electoral "Cross of Gold."

Scott Ritter served as a Chief UN Weapons Inspector in Iraq from 1991 until his resignation in 1998. He is the author of, most recently, Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein (Nation Books, 2005).