Karzai Appears Set To Agree To Runoff In Afghan Election

New York Times:

KABUL, Afghanistan -- Under heavy international pressure, President Hamid Karzai appears set to concede as early as Tuesday that he fell short of a first-round victory in the nation's disputed presidential election, but the path to ensuring that the country has credible leadership remains uncertain, American and European officials said Monday.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[2Bfair]

It is fortunate that the President has this additional advisor so knowledgeable on international issues and diplomacy, and with personal experience on tough presidential elections. John Kerry served at this point of crisis as the defacto Secretary of State. Kudos.

[placpje]

"De Facto Secretary of State"? LOL!

He did his job delivering a message.

Congrats to Sen. Kerry, ..... AND Secretary Clinton.

[Brezzydee]

It's good that the President sent Senator Kerry over there to prod Karzai into the recount. Just think, for the last 2 weeks or so, the President have been pounded by Republicans and some Democrats to hurry up and make a decision about sending 40,000 lives to war there. Think goodness we have a common sense patient President, where you don't send people into harm's way and there is no one legally running the country. So I say kudos's to the President for standing his ground, and not being rushed by anyone.

As everyone can see, the President got his way, they will have a reelection in Afghanistan to determine the legitimate leader.
The news media, the Republicans and some Democrats look like fools right about now.
Everyone think they know more than the President ( who have daily behind the scenes intelligent reports) and they think he should just do what they say. They will all learn, it's a new day and a new way forward for America.

[2Bfair]

It is good John Kerry could fill that would typically be plaed by a US Secretary of State. The full NYT article suggests that the SoS is anxiouls to be seen as in charge. Itreports: “He is going to announce his intentions,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters at the State Department. “I am going to let him do that, but I am encouraged at the direction the situation is moving.” Did she say she was "going to let" the president of another nation announce his decision on his nation's presidential election? It sounds "tough," but is wise, appropriate, diplomatic to say that to the press, when such tense negotiaions are in progress?

[placpje]

The full NYT article suggests no such thing, unless you're trying to read between the lines to create fairytales.

In terms of her comment that she was "going to let" Karzai announce his decision, maybe if you read it in context it will help with your confusion. Secretary Clinton was clearly indicating she didn't want to comment on the status of the negotiations before Karzai had a chance to make his announcement and a plan for progress was in place. Clearly, she didn't want to speak prematurely or embarrass Karzai.

"Clinton said she expected Karzai to "announce his intentions" tomorrow. "I am very hopeful that we will see a resolution in line with the constitutional order in the next several days, but I don’t want to preempt in any way President Karzai’s statement which will sort of set the stage for how we go forward in the next stage of this."

Asked if Karzai was going to announce his intentions tomorrow, why wouldn't the resolution be announced then rather than in several days, Clinton responded: "He is going to announce his intentions. I’m going to let him do that. But I am encouraged at the direction that the situation is moving."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/1009/Clinton_hopeful_Afghan_elections_crisis_moving_towards_resolution_.html

Guess she's just "tough" and a smart diplomat.

Heh, heh, heh ...

[obmark]

2Bfair I check in with you once in a while to see if you're still railing against the Clintons. The first few posts of yours I saw actually didn't say anything about the Clintons. I thought, how can this be?!!! But then I read this post. You haven't let me down. Go get'em tiger! You are a beautiful piece of work.

[2Bfair]

could fill a role that*

[darthmaul]

I'm afraid this may be a "Pyrrhic victory." With a "legitimate" Afghanistan President, there will be more impetus for Obama to send in more troops. So now we Afghanistan will have a President, who was dragged along into having a semi-legitimate vote. Guess what will happen when the election is finally over. "Business" as usual.

[vippy]

The election was rigged from the start, of course. As I said, no one votes for someone who resided in another country, worked for Unocal (oil LOL) and is from Houston, TX. So the USA put him in charge
in Afghanistan and then expects that the Afghanis vote for this man? And I read where the USA is shelving the voter fraud investigation in Afghanistan. Corruption running amok in Afghanistan, anyone wonder? But we need him eh so I wonder how this will play out.

[KarateKid]

We can get caught up in semantics, but wasn't this essentially an election for Mayor of Kabul?

[NuAgeDok]

Karzai ran a great Afgani restaurant in the DC area - maybe he whould go back to that line of work.

[getoffmedz]

Maybe Hamid Karzai can get back his old job at the oil company?

[Vicks123]

Bring the troops home!

[KarateKid]

If Karzai insists he wants to be a _petty _despot, let him and let's get out. This place is not worth American lives or resources. It's almost like we're playing the _Domino Theory all over again. Let's see how he does as the _warlord of Kabul; within six months, he'll be living in exile in Paris.

But you know the theory: (if we leave Afghanistan, the Taliban will return, then AQ will move in, then _terrorism will revive....blah blah blah)

The _Domino Theory didn't happen the first time. Fool me once (Vietnam), _shame on you (and it almost cost me my life); fool me twice, _shame on me.

Get us out of this quicksand, Mr. President. Don't fall for the _macho gambit.

[bulfinch]

Afghanistan destroyed the Soviet Union, and it could destroy us. Invaders do not do well there.

[NoFactsJustTruth]

It was widely known that the Taliban had all but wiped out poppy production in that country before we invaded, and it's the warlords supporting Karzai that brought it back and now control the trade.

The Taliban may be stealing someone else's profit$ from the drug trade to fund their war, but it's seriously doubtful that guerilla forces while continuously 'on the run' re-established the lucrative agri-drug economy of Afghanistan. There's not much doubt SOMEONE has...

[marecek]

Can we get serious here. Up to one-third of the votes for Karzai were fraudulent, so it is pretty clear that he is willing to cheat to stay in power. So the outcome suggested now is to ignore the people altogether and let Karzai stay in power if he "promises" to rule in coalition with the opposing candidate, in other words, the Zimbabwe option. I ain't buying it. President Karzai should be informed that, due to the massive fraud, it is clear that he does not believe in democracy in any sense of the word and should be sent home. Then the other main vote getters in the election should form a provisional coalition government until preparations can be made for a new election run by international observers who can guarantee that it is conducted in a free and fair manner. Why should US soldiers die in battle to support a corrupt "president" who will not submit to actual elections. And why should common Afghanis risk violence (having their voting finger cut off) or death for the great privilege of voting in a rigged election.

I think the answer is clear. Karzai MUST GO!!!!

[respected]

We had better start to check our own machines:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7472

[listeningpost]

I think this is basically what the "should we stay or should we go" theater has been about for the last month.
This is not business as usual in terms of what the US expected of their clients in the past. I'm sure other countries are taking note.

[Whinger]

Sure thing, he bought it once, he can do it again!