Accusing his opponent, Hamid Karzai of setting up a vote that could not be transparent, former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah withdrew from next weekend's run-off election. This, practically, hands Karzai a victory. But it also makes the questions about the corruption and legitimacy of the leadership of Afghanistan even more questionable.
Let's not forget who appointed Karzai.
flickr image by BlatantNews.com
Vice President Dick Cheney and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert welcome Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai before he addresses the joint meeting of Congress on Capitol Hill - June 15th 2004
Abdullah said, "In one hour, all my conditions could have been implemented. Unfortunately, until the last moment we were waiting, but we heard they rejected our appeals."
He pulled out because he could not persuade Karzai to make those changes that would have cleaned up the elections so they would be transparent and trustworthy. Instead, the election commission appointed by Karzai and backed by a supreme court appointed by Karzai added extra polling places, which made the election even more at risk to fraud.
Imagine if a candidate in the US refused to participate in an election because it was at risk, because 70 of the electronic votes were counted by a partisan company-- as is the case now.
This election outcome puts the credibility of this Afghan regime even more in question. Should the US be sacrificing our soldiers lives and billions to back a corrupt, fraudulently elected government?
The NY Times reports,
This development offers anti-war groups and individuals of all ideologies a new handle with which to take on and oppose the continuation of the war.
Let's not forget who appointed Karzai.
flickr image by BlatantNews.com
Vice President Dick Cheney and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert welcome Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai before he addresses the joint meeting of Congress on Capitol Hill - June 15th 2004
Abdullah said, "In one hour, all my conditions could have been implemented. Unfortunately, until the last moment we were waiting, but we heard they rejected our appeals."
Imagine if a candidate in the US refused to participate in an election because it was at risk, because 70 of the electronic votes were counted by a partisan company-- as is the case now.
This election outcome puts the credibility of this Afghan regime even more in question. Should the US be sacrificing our soldiers lives and billions to back a corrupt, fraudulently elected government?
The NY Times reports,
"Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, traveling in Abu Dhabi, gave the administration's only comment on Saturday in response to the reports that Mr. Abdullah might withdraw. � ���"We see that happen in our own country where, for whatever combination of reasons, one of the candidates decides not to go forward,� �� � she said. � ���"I don't think it has anything to do with the legitimacy of the election. It's a personal choice which may or may not be made.� �� �Clinton's response seems to presage the Obama administration's response. For all we know, the Abdullah withdrawal may have been orchestrated by the Obama administration. Is it wild speculation to suggest that a war that the US government is investing tens of billions in might find a few hundred million to buy a candidate out of the race?
This development offers anti-war groups and individuals of all ideologies a new handle with which to take on and oppose the continuation of the war.
