Karzai blames "the west" for fraud in Afghan elections

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Ok, this seriously pisses me off. This fuck wouldn't even be in power if it wasn't for "the west." Maybe we should just pull the 130,000 troops we have out of there, not to mention the billions the world community is feeding into his corrupt government, and GTFO. After which his head will be on a pole in Kabul within two weeks tops.

Asshat.

KABUL - President Hamid Karzai accused the West on Thursday of trying to ruin Afghanistan's elections, intensifying a showdown with parliament over whether foreigners will oversee a parliamentary vote this year.

Karzai's international reputation took a battering last year after a U.N.-backed fraud watchdog threw out a third of the votes cast for him in last year's presidential election. He is now wrangling with parliament and the United Nations over fraud protection measures for a parliamentary vote due in September.

"Foreigners will make excuses, they do not want us to have a parliamentary election," a defiant Karzai told a gathering of election officials. "They want parliament to be weakened and battered, and for me to be an ineffective president and for parliament to be ineffective.

"You have gone through the kind of elections during which you were not only threatened with terror, you also faced massive interference from foreigners," Karzai told the officials. "Some embassies also tried to bribe the members of the commission."

He singled out Peter Galbraith, the American former deputy of the U.N. mission in Kabul, sacked after accusing his boss of turning a blind eye to fraud, and French General Philippe Morillon, head of an EU vote monitoring mission.

"There was fraud in the presidential and provincial election, with no doubt there was massive fraud. This wasn't fraud by Afghans but the fraud of foreigners, the fraud of Galbraith, of Morillon and the votes of the Afghan nation were in the control of an embassy," Karzai said.


He accused Galbraith of telling an election official he would be "digging himself an early grave" if Karzai was declared first round winner and said Morillon had tried to block the announcement of results to force Karzai to accept a political alliance.

Hurt support for war
Last year's election stand-off -- which ended when the U.N.-backed body ordered a second round but Karzai's opponent quit -- eroded support in the West for the eight-year-old war. A new election confrontation could further sour public opinion in a decisive year, when Washington is sending an extra 30,000 troops.

Ahead of September's parliamentary poll, Karzai issued a decree in February revoking the power of the United Nations to appoint the majority of members of the election fraud watchdog.

The lower house of parliament rejected Karzai's decree on Wednesday, a move diplomats described as a rebuke for the president, although the motion would still need to pass in the upper house to restore U.N. oversight of the vote.

Karzai told the election officials and reporters his decree was vital to Afghanistan's sovereignty.

The United Nations has called for reforms to Afghanistan's election commission to prevent fraud, before it will agree to free up donor funds needed to pay for the September 18 vote.

Changes to commission
"The foreigners have said if you don't dismiss these men, we will not give you any money," Karzai said, adding he would announce changes to the election commission next week.


Click for related content
U.S. sends aid to partners in Afghan war

The fraud watchdog is a separate body, which was led by a Canadian during last year's election and ordered the election commission to overturn Karzai's first round victory.

New U.N. envoy Staffan de Mistura accepted a compromise offer from Karzai this month that would let the United Nations appoint a minority of members of the fraud watchdog, rather than the majority as it did last year. Parliament's rejection of Karzai's decree means the status of that deal is now in doubt.

"I am working on it. That's all I can say," de Mistura told Reuters late on Wednesday.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36136784/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Not much mystery here. He needs to save face and we're the scapegoat. There's absolutely no reason to be upset with water being wet. This is the nature of things.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Not much mystery here. He needs to save face and we're the scapegoat. There's absolutely no reason to be upset with water being wet. This is the nature of things.

I think this is an attempt to pander to the "moderate" Taliban - who are supposedly "anti-foreigner" but not as radical as the core Taliban - for some kind of power-share negotiation. Still, it rubs me the wrong way. Everything this guy has, including his limbs still being attached to his body, has been supplied by the west. He is a complete incompetent who cannot control the corruption in his regime, or worse, is abetting it, and everyone knows this. And he wants to blame the west for his own fraud and corruption? We've spent how much money there, giving much of it to prop up his failing regime, and sacrified how many lives now? Even though I can see this as a political calculation on his part, it just doesn't sit well with me.

- wolf
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
I think this is an attempt to pander to the "moderate" Taliban - who are supposedly "anti-foreigner" but not as radical as the core Taliban - for some kind of power-share negotiation. Still, it rubs me the wrong way. Everything this guy has, including his limbs still being attached to his body, has been supplied by the west. He is a complete incompetent who cannot control the corruption in his regime, or worse, is abetting it, and everyone knows this. And he wants to blame the west for his own fraud and corruption? We've spent how much money there, giving much of it to prop up his failing regime, and sacrified how many lives now? Even though I can see this as a political calculation on his part, it just doesn't sit well with me.

- wolf

Of course he's incompetent, but that never mattered. The Afghans people as a whole never wanted a centralized government. People there joked about the "President of Kabul", meaning that there was never a "Presidency" except in name.

In the ME a leader can be criminal. He can be incompetent. He can be a great many things, but he cannot afford to lose face. To prevent that, Karzai will do just what he did.

I think one of the most difficult things is for Americans to understand other cultures without insisting that ours is the "best" and that every one else really wants to be "Little Americans".

Karzai is doing what's expected, and senior analysts and diplomats understand precisely what's happening, well if they are worth their pay they do.

We do not call the shots by any means and we never did. The goal is to make Afghanistan less of a threat, and if Karzai can make a deal with the Taliban to not make the country as bad as it was, that's what we're going to have to accept.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Of course he's incompetent, but that never mattered. The Afghans people as a whole never wanted a centralized government. People there joked about the "President of Kabul", meaning that there was never a "Presidency" except in name.

In the ME a leader can be criminal. He can be incompetent. He can be a great many things, but he cannot afford to lose face. To prevent that, Karzai will do just what he did.

I think one of the most difficult things is for Americans to understand other cultures without insisting that ours is the "best" and that every one else really wants to be "Little Americans".

Karzai is doing what's expected, and senior analysts and diplomats understand precisely what's happening, well if they are worth their pay they do.

We do not call the shots by any means and we never did. The goal is to make Afghanistan less of a threat, and if Karzai can make a deal with the Taliban to not make the country as bad as it was, that's what we're going to have to accept.

I'm not insisting that our culture is "the best." I'm suggesting that biting the hand that feeds is a pretty repugnant thing to do. Yes, I know, everything you're saying is an accurate analysis of the cultural and political factors in play here, and I shouldn't get worked up about it.

But I will say this. This sort of thing makes me rethink my very tentative support of Obama's surge, and inclines me toward the position that we should pull out as soon as practicable. Come July of next year, it will be an open question how fast we pull out. Karzai has stated that he very much wants us there for the longest time possible. Obama, like any other politician, will consider poll numbers in any decision he makes, particularly as he is up for re-election in 2012. Accordingly, I think it might behoove Karzai to be a bit careful about the U.S. bashing, if he really wants us to stick around as long as possible. I doubt this particular issue will have much impact in and of itself, but this kind of thing can accumulate over time.

- wolf
 

cubeless

Diamond Member
Sep 17, 2001
4,295
1
81
karzai doesn't give a crap what he's the boss of, just that he's the boss... we don't give a crap about who the boss is, just as long as we have some control of the boss...

same as it ever was is right...
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
I'm not insisting that our culture is "the best." I'm suggesting that biting the hand that feeds is a pretty repugnant thing to do. Yes, I know, everything you're saying is an accurate analysis of the cultural and political factors in play here, and I shouldn't get worked up about it.

But I will say this. This sort of thing makes me rethink my very tentative support of Obama's surge, and inclines me toward the position that we should pull out as soon as practicable. Come July of next year, it will be an open question how fast we pull out. Karzai has stated that he very much wants us there for the longest time possible. Obama, like any other politician, will consider poll numbers in any decision he makes, particularly as he is up for re-election in 2012. Accordingly, I think it might behoove Karzai to be a bit careful about the U.S. bashing, if he really wants us to stick around as long as possible. I doubt this particular issue will have much impact in and of itself, but this kind of thing can accumulate over time.

- wolf


I didn't think you missed my point, I was generalizing. As far as Karzai goes, there's nothing we can do to help or hurt him short of a CIA coup (and even we aren't THAT stupid). US support can in fact have a negative impact on him, much like Bush backing a given leader. It's like getting a kiss from the Mafia.

The point in all of this is that we are using Karzai, and he us. It's The Grand Old Game, second only to prostitution in terms of how long it's been around.

He's still useful to us and we to him. There are no "friends" in diplomacy, only common interests. We'd shaft any country in the world in a heartbeat if it were necessary, and they us, and we all know how it's played. Frustrating perhaps, but if you are in a situation which requires a dispassionate analysis of foreign politics and policies, again it's like saying water is wet.

Perhaps that's the advantage of being an ordinary citizen. We can afford to give in to our feelings about such things.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
If our objective is to 'create' an atmosphere in Afganistan that will prevent it from being used as a base for future terrorist on the West, I don't think Karzai's stupid remarks are cause to leave. His remarks do not outweight our objective.

I think we leave upon (1) achieving our objective or (2) realizing we can't and quit trying.

Karzai was elected, IMO we'll just have to deal with him and his remarks.

(BTW: I don't recall Peter Galbraith being fired by the UN etc. I assume he was chosen by Obama for that job, his dismissal raises questions about what's going with the admin and their Afgan efforts/plans and diplomatic sucesses etc.)

Fern
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
(BTW: I don't recall Peter Galbraith being fired by the UN etc. I assume he was chosen by Obama for that job, his dismissal raises questions about what's going with the admin and their Afgan efforts/plans and diplomatic sucesses etc.)

Fern

Galbraith was announced as the next United Nations' Deputy Special Representative for Afghanistan on March 25, 2009.[8] He is considered a close ally of Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. Special Representative to Afghanistan.[9]

Galbraith abruptly left the country in mid September 2009 at the request of UN Special Representative to Afghanistan Kai Eide following a dispute over the handling of the reported fraud in the 2009 Afghan presidential election.[10] The two formerly close friends had a public dispute about the role of the U.N. in preventing and monitoring the massive fraud in this election. On September 30, the UN announced that he had been removed from his position by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. [11] In response to his firing, Galbraith told The Times, "I was not prepared to be complicit in a cover-up or in an effort to downplay the fraud that took place. I felt we had to face squarely the fraud that took place. Kai downplayed the fraud."[12][13]. When Eide announced his own stepping down in December, 2009, he did not do so voluntarily, according to Galbraith, though Eide has said it was a voluntary departure.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_W._Galbraith

- wolf
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,575
9,827
136
Karzai blames "the west" for fraud in Afghan elections

It was sometime in 2006 when I realized the "war" to reconstruct these nations was lost. We lost because whatever sort of regime we prop up will be no more friendly than what we originally went to war to remove.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
I didn't think you missed my point, I was generalizing. As far as Karzai goes, there's nothing we can do to help or hurt him short of a CIA coup (and even we aren't THAT stupid). US support can in fact have a negative impact on him, much like Bush backing a given leader. It's like getting a kiss from the Mafia.

The point in all of this is that we are using Karzai, and he us. It's The Grand Old Game, second only to prostitution in terms of how long it's been around.

He's still useful to us and we to him. There are no "friends" in diplomacy, only common interests. We'd shaft any country in the world in a heartbeat if it were necessary, and they us, and we all know how it's played. Frustrating perhaps, but if you are in a situation which requires a dispassionate analysis of foreign politics and policies, again it's like saying water is wet.

Perhaps that's the advantage of being an ordinary citizen. We can afford to give in to our feelings about such things.

Your words are wise. It is, indeed, all realpolitik. I do wonder if Karzai is playing the game right, however. If he is pandering for a negotiated settlement with the Taliban, but is unsuccessful, his U.S. bashing may cause us to pull out sooner for home front political reasons. In which case, he's cooked.

- wolf
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106

I've been reading some old articles about it. And I've read Galbraith's claim's in his letter following his dismissal. There's some very disturbing accusations against Kai Eide and the UN in general. Apparently Galbraith also has a suit pending against the UN now.


I don't recall hearing anything in the MSM about this (but I may have been on a 2-3 week cross-country trip during that period and missed it).

I searched and looked like P&N never had a single thread on the matter.

I do remember the election fruad story, but Galbraith's acussations are quite serious, I'd think it would be more mainstream. Curious.

The whole thing just reminds me how little attention the MSM gives these wars now that Bush is out of office.

Fern
 
Last edited:

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
I've been reading some old articles about it. And I've read Galbraith's claim's in his letter following his dismissal. There's some very disturbing accusations against Kai Eide and the UN in general. Apparently Galbraith also has a suit pending against the UN now.


I don't recall hearing anything in the MSM about this (but I may have been on a 2-3 week cross-country trip during that period and missed it).

I searched and looked like P&N never had a single on the matter.

I do remember the election fruad story, but Galbraith's acussations are quite serious, I'd think it would be more mainstream. Curious.

The whole thing just reminds me how little attention the MSM gives these wars now that Bush is out of office.

Fern

MSM actually paid less attention to Afghanistan when Bush was in power than now, but more to Iraq. The reasons for each are quite clear.

Google is your friend.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/02/AR2009100202855.html

- wolf
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Yeah you're right, didn't read closely enough. Sorry. I still wonder why you are suggesting a lack of MSM coverage when his letter appeared in the WP.

Anyway, here an interview of Galbraith:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wY4_h4j3rA

- wolf

Why, I guess I don't see much on the news shows I happen to watch. Now it's not necessarily unusual that there are things I miss, but I can usually rely on somebody to post something here (P&N). That didn't happen either.

What channel is that show "Democracy Now" broadcast on? It doesn't look familiar to me. Edit: NM, I found the info, it's not a "MSM" program)

Fern
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
I particularly like Karzai's remarks about "Afghan sovereignty"...

If western forces left the country tomorrow, he'd have to leave with 'em to avoid swinging from a lamppost the day after...

The Bush Admin didn't care about how much money their Afghan cronies were stealing, because they were getting theirs, too, nor about how poorly the reconstruction was going, so long as it wasn't too hot for American troops to stay, nor about the amount of heroin being produced, nor about much of anything other than what looked good on paper and what their friends in the military supply biz were raking in... perpetual occupation and insurgency means perpetual profit, right?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
I particularly like Karzai's remarks about "Afghan sovereignty"...

If western forces left the country tomorrow, he'd have to leave with 'em to avoid swinging from a lamppost the day after...

The Bush Admin didn't care about how much money their Afghan cronies were stealing, because they were getting theirs, too, nor about how poorly the reconstruction was going, so long as it wasn't too hot for American troops to stay, nor about the amount of heroin being produced, nor about much of anything other than what looked good on paper and what their friends in the military supply biz were raking in... perpetual occupation and insurgency means perpetual profit, right?


Obama doesn't care how much his cronies are stealing either. Good heaven's man, this is how business is done. If you can't play with the big boys, get out.

FYI, Obama is going to do EXACTLY what Bush did, so if you are going on that tirade, you'd better shoot him too. Do you think this is about fairness or what is "right"? It's about making the best deal one can in order to get the best outcome for THIS country.

Egads.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Obama doesn't care how much his cronies are stealing either. Good heaven's man, this is how business is done. If you can't play with the big boys, get out.

FYI, Obama is going to do EXACTLY what Bush did, so if you are going on that tirade, you'd better shoot him too. Do you think this is about fairness or what is "right"? It's about making the best deal one can in order to get the best outcome for THIS country.

Egads.

Not exactly. He did commit what will hopefully be enough troops to quell insurrection, and has pressured the Karzai regime wrt the upcoming elections. Not to mention switching tactics to something more like those that may allow us to escape Iraq... plus bypassing the central govt with distribution of aid so they can't steal it all...

The Bush Admin had no exit strategy for Iraq, nor for Afghanistan, either. They didn't want one. Like I said, perpetual occupation and insurgency means perpetual profit... It's good for America, right?

Just little things...
 

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0
Not exactly. He did commit what will hopefully be enough troops to quell insurrection, and has pressured the Karzai regime wrt the upcoming elections. Not to mention switching tactics to something more like those that may allow us to escape Iraq... plus bypassing the central govt with distribution of aid so they can't steal it all...

The Bush Admin had no exit strategy for Iraq, nor for Afghanistan, either. They didn't want one. Like I said, perpetual occupation and insurgency means perpetual profit....

Just little things...

You know nothing.

Obama has more than doubled aid to Pakistan to 1.8 billion in military aid (in addition to 500 million economic), and gifting a block of F16s on top of the military aid.

In fact, Pakistan has received almost as money as Israel since 2002.

Look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_North-West_Pakistan

Between 7,000-10,000 civilians killed since 2004. Millions made homeless. 27,000 people killed in total, probably more but we'll never know.

Over 150 people alone have been killed by the Pakistani military since March 31 (yesterday!) as part "Orakzai" offensive scheduled to end in June.

According to progressive sites, as Bush and Obama have increased dollars to Pakistan...casualties have gone up.

In 2005 only ~600 were killed by Pakistan. But in 2007, when Pakistan received more money from the USA, 3,500+ were killed.

And the vast majority of the Pakistani population does not support US aid to Pakistan.

Pakistan is an Islamic cesspool that is not helping the "war on terror." Obama fortunately put conditions on the aid to Pakistan that it cannot be used against India, but it is unlikely that will prove effective. Pakistani special forces continues to sponsor LeT militants against India with tacit support for the USA.

This war is BULLSHIT. Pakistan is a ruthless dictatorship that now has a license to kill because of US-backing.

And the left is silent. Pakistan can have free money all day and all night, Obama couldn't give less of a shit about Pakistani or Afghan civilians.

But Israel can't have 5 Apache helicopters because he "cares about the Palestinians."

Leftist fucks have no moral compass.