Dear Blogger Friends and Readers,
I am getting ready to fly to Texas, as I just got word that one of my brothers may have been one of the victims. I will be back online Monday night.
Council on American-Islamic Relations
4 days ago
Thursday, November 5, 2009
At least twelve killed in shooting at Fort Hood, Tex.
"AT LEAST 12 KILLED IN SHOOTING AT FORT HOOD, TEX.; U.S. SOLDIER AMONG THE GUNMEN"
By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 5, 2009; 5:15 PM
At least one U.S. soldier in uniform opened fire on troops at Fort Hood, Tex., Thursday, killing at least 12 people and wounding more than 31 others, officials said.
Officials said two other soldiers suspected of being involved in the shooting were in custody. The shooting occurred at a processing center and nearby theater where soldiers were preparing to deploy to the wars in Iran and Afghanistan, officials said.
Lt. Gen. Bob Cone, the commanding general of Fort Hood, said one gunman was shot at the processing center and that two others suspected of involvement were apprehended later.
President Obama called the incident "a horrific outburst of violence."
"These are men and women who made the selfless and courageous decision" to risk their lives in the service of the nation, Obama said. "It is horrifying that they should come under fire at an Army base on American soil."
Sgt. Maj. Jamie Posten, a base spokesman, earlier said that two gunmen opened fire at the post's Soldier Readiness Processing Center. Authorities said shots were also fired at the Howze Theater near the readiness center.
"At this time, Fort Hood is locked down to in-and-out traffic."
Inside the processing center, soldiers were preparing for deployments to both Iraq and Afghanistan. Cone said he did not yet have information of which units were inside at 1:30 p.m., when the shooting took place.
Located near Killeen, Tex., Fort Hood is the U.S. military's largest installation and the only Army post in the United States that houses two divisions. It is also the home of III Corps headquarters.
About 65,000 soldiers and family members live on the post.
Obama was informed of the shooting shortly after it occurred, a White House spokesman said.
**************************************************************************
What is happening to us?
By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 5, 2009; 5:15 PM
At least one U.S. soldier in uniform opened fire on troops at Fort Hood, Tex., Thursday, killing at least 12 people and wounding more than 31 others, officials said.
Officials said two other soldiers suspected of being involved in the shooting were in custody. The shooting occurred at a processing center and nearby theater where soldiers were preparing to deploy to the wars in Iran and Afghanistan, officials said.
Lt. Gen. Bob Cone, the commanding general of Fort Hood, said one gunman was shot at the processing center and that two others suspected of involvement were apprehended later.
President Obama called the incident "a horrific outburst of violence."
"These are men and women who made the selfless and courageous decision" to risk their lives in the service of the nation, Obama said. "It is horrifying that they should come under fire at an Army base on American soil."
Sgt. Maj. Jamie Posten, a base spokesman, earlier said that two gunmen opened fire at the post's Soldier Readiness Processing Center. Authorities said shots were also fired at the Howze Theater near the readiness center.
"At this time, Fort Hood is locked down to in-and-out traffic."
Inside the processing center, soldiers were preparing for deployments to both Iraq and Afghanistan. Cone said he did not yet have information of which units were inside at 1:30 p.m., when the shooting took place.
Located near Killeen, Tex., Fort Hood is the U.S. military's largest installation and the only Army post in the United States that houses two divisions. It is also the home of III Corps headquarters.
About 65,000 soldiers and family members live on the post.
Obama was informed of the shooting shortly after it occurred, a White House spokesman said.
**************************************************************************
What is happening to us?
On the Hill, Protesters Chant ‘Kill the Bill’
November 5, 2009, 12:15 pm
By David M. Herszenhorn
Thousands of opponents of the Democrats’ health care legislation are gathered outside the Capitol, for a noon news conference and rally led by Representative Michele Bachmann, Republican of Minnesota, and the chants are already underway, echoing across the Mall.
Kill the bill!” they are shouting. “Kill the bill!”
A series of spot interviews suggests that the protesters have come to Washington from all across the country – Texas, Ohio, Oregon and the greater Washington area. It’s a generally older crowd, many in their 50s and 60s, predominantly, white, and many self-identified as Christians. They are fiercely conservative and deeply skeptical of the government, many of them adamantly opposed to abortion rights.
“The government couldn’t even get the shots out,” said Karen Ambrose of Sunbury, Ohio, ridiculing the government’s efforts to vaccinate people for the H1N1 flu as an example of what government-run health care would look like. “Let’s just get the government out of all this.”
The crowd is waving signs, some predictable, others inventive.
“No Socialistic Health Care.” “Sweeping Away Socialism One Democrat at a Time.” “Politicians Lie, Patients Die”
“You lie!”
“All lies”
Jerry Hershberger, a market representative for an automotive company for Flower Mountain, Texas, said he flew up just to protest the health care bill. “A little expense now compared to a lot of expense later,” he said, explaining why the cost of the trip was worth it to him.
Mr. Hershberger, like many of the demonstrators, repeated some of the most common conservative and Republican talking points heard repeatedly on Fox News. “It’s not bipartisan,” he said, standing outside the Capitol wearing a Texas Longhorns baseball cap. “They are doing it behind closed doors.” He added: “It’s going to drive us into a super-deficit.”
Mr. Hershberger, who has health insurance through his employer, said that he believed some changes were needed to the health care system, but that Democrats were going about the process all wrong. “Scrap all this, start from the beginning, bring in the conservatives, the Republicans and the Democrats and see what we need to do to care for the 12 to 14 million people who really need insurance.”
Asked what he thought about the three-month effort by Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, work with Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee to draft a bipartisan bill, Mr. Hershberger dismissed it, saying the resulting legislation proved the process had failed. “It doesn’t reflect what we want,” he said.
“Can you hear us now?” the crowd chanted behind him.
Mr. Hershberger said he was hoping to make a difference. “I literally got off my butt yesterday,” he said. “We might have an impact. A politician can’t be a politician if they get voted out of office.”
Many of the demonstrators, like Judith Garloch of Newark, Ohio, said they were opposed to an increasing government role in the health care. Many said they feared cuts to the Medicare program for Americans 65 and over. Many described themselves as conservative and opposed to higher taxes.
“We support our country and we’re patriots,” Ms. Garloch said. “And I don’t want my health care to be changed.”
Ms. Garloch, who has a combination of Medicare and private coverage, said insurance should be sold across state lines to increase competition.
But Ms. Garloch, like many in the crowd who while visibly angry. could not articulate the main problems in the health care system or how they should be solved.
Some of the same people warning of too much government spending also complained that Medicare does not provide sufficient coverage.
Ms. Garloch dismissed suggestions that some hospitals, like the Cleveland Clinic in her home state, had figured out ways to provide higher-quality medical outcomes at lower cost, indicating that there might be ways to cut costs without sacrificing patient care.
Her brother-in-law worked at the Cleveland Clinic for several years. “There’s a lot of bureaucracy there,” she said. “You don’t get everything you want.”
As for how to fix the health care system, she said “I think we need to fix what’s wrong now – I think we need to put a cap on the malpractice lawsuits. I just can’t see how adding more things, power to the government is going to help anything.”
Nearby, Representative Virginia Foxx, Republican of North Carolina, who recently said the Democrats’ health care legislation was more frightening to her than terrorists, worked the crowd, shaking hands and offering warm greetings. It is a clear fall day, with a crisp breeze.
Alan R. Davis, of Chillicothe, Ohio, said he had a professional background in health care finance, and was attending the protest because of his deep concerns about that nation’s staggering debt. “The country is going broke,” he said.
As for controlling medical costs, Mr. Davis did not have any ready solutions. He said that last December, his wife, Jennifer, had a heart transplant at the Cleveland Clinic. But he said he had no idea what it had cost. Her insurance coverage has an annual deductible of $4,000. After that, he said, everything was covered “100 percent.”
Mr. Davis said he did not trust Democrats’ assertions that the health care bill would be deficit neutral. “Whether it’s deficit neutral at this stage is someone’s guess, it’s an educated guess,” he said.
Mr. Davis said Americans needed to think more about the quality of life, rather than the length of life. He said that he and his wife had just such a discussion before she went forward with her heart transplant, at age 55.
Art Scevola, a financial consultant from Portland, Ore., said that he felt a mission to come to Washington. “It’s time to make a stand,” he said. “We want to see limited government, not more taxes put in our face. We don’t believe our health care system entirely broken. We need to slow down, stop and start over with this legislation.”
Mr. Scevola said that he had health insurance through his employer. “Kaiser Permanente,” he said proudly. “They are the best on the West Coast.”
******************************************************************************
So, I am sitting at my dining room table with my girlfriend, and a couple of our close friends and two of our neighbors are over here, and we are listening to the Rush Limbaugh show, and we find out that the 'AARP' is supporting this "Obamacare Nightmare".
The conversation stopped, and we all just looked at each other in astonishment, and suddenly, the cell phones came out and calls to other friends who are AARP memberswere being made, and then our friends started calling the AARP offices and telling them that "if they continue to support this Obama Healthcare Plan, all memberships would be CANCELLED. And our friends started taking their AARP cards out and began CUTTING THEM UP! CUT THE CARDS UP! LOL!
This is a message to any insurance company that is supporting this healthcare nightmare--if you do, you lose our support.
My friends asked me to post this on here in order to help support them in this fight, so, that is why I posted this. Start calling the AARP and tell them that if they support this, you will drop your memberships.
Thank you.
By David M. Herszenhorn
Thousands of opponents of the Democrats’ health care legislation are gathered outside the Capitol, for a noon news conference and rally led by Representative Michele Bachmann, Republican of Minnesota, and the chants are already underway, echoing across the Mall.
Kill the bill!” they are shouting. “Kill the bill!”
A series of spot interviews suggests that the protesters have come to Washington from all across the country – Texas, Ohio, Oregon and the greater Washington area. It’s a generally older crowd, many in their 50s and 60s, predominantly, white, and many self-identified as Christians. They are fiercely conservative and deeply skeptical of the government, many of them adamantly opposed to abortion rights.
“The government couldn’t even get the shots out,” said Karen Ambrose of Sunbury, Ohio, ridiculing the government’s efforts to vaccinate people for the H1N1 flu as an example of what government-run health care would look like. “Let’s just get the government out of all this.”
The crowd is waving signs, some predictable, others inventive.
“No Socialistic Health Care.” “Sweeping Away Socialism One Democrat at a Time.” “Politicians Lie, Patients Die”
“You lie!”
“All lies”
Jerry Hershberger, a market representative for an automotive company for Flower Mountain, Texas, said he flew up just to protest the health care bill. “A little expense now compared to a lot of expense later,” he said, explaining why the cost of the trip was worth it to him.
Mr. Hershberger, like many of the demonstrators, repeated some of the most common conservative and Republican talking points heard repeatedly on Fox News. “It’s not bipartisan,” he said, standing outside the Capitol wearing a Texas Longhorns baseball cap. “They are doing it behind closed doors.” He added: “It’s going to drive us into a super-deficit.”
Mr. Hershberger, who has health insurance through his employer, said that he believed some changes were needed to the health care system, but that Democrats were going about the process all wrong. “Scrap all this, start from the beginning, bring in the conservatives, the Republicans and the Democrats and see what we need to do to care for the 12 to 14 million people who really need insurance.”
Asked what he thought about the three-month effort by Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, work with Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee to draft a bipartisan bill, Mr. Hershberger dismissed it, saying the resulting legislation proved the process had failed. “It doesn’t reflect what we want,” he said.
“Can you hear us now?” the crowd chanted behind him.
Mr. Hershberger said he was hoping to make a difference. “I literally got off my butt yesterday,” he said. “We might have an impact. A politician can’t be a politician if they get voted out of office.”
Many of the demonstrators, like Judith Garloch of Newark, Ohio, said they were opposed to an increasing government role in the health care. Many said they feared cuts to the Medicare program for Americans 65 and over. Many described themselves as conservative and opposed to higher taxes.
“We support our country and we’re patriots,” Ms. Garloch said. “And I don’t want my health care to be changed.”
Ms. Garloch, who has a combination of Medicare and private coverage, said insurance should be sold across state lines to increase competition.
But Ms. Garloch, like many in the crowd who while visibly angry. could not articulate the main problems in the health care system or how they should be solved.
Some of the same people warning of too much government spending also complained that Medicare does not provide sufficient coverage.
Ms. Garloch dismissed suggestions that some hospitals, like the Cleveland Clinic in her home state, had figured out ways to provide higher-quality medical outcomes at lower cost, indicating that there might be ways to cut costs without sacrificing patient care.
Her brother-in-law worked at the Cleveland Clinic for several years. “There’s a lot of bureaucracy there,” she said. “You don’t get everything you want.”
As for how to fix the health care system, she said “I think we need to fix what’s wrong now – I think we need to put a cap on the malpractice lawsuits. I just can’t see how adding more things, power to the government is going to help anything.”
Nearby, Representative Virginia Foxx, Republican of North Carolina, who recently said the Democrats’ health care legislation was more frightening to her than terrorists, worked the crowd, shaking hands and offering warm greetings. It is a clear fall day, with a crisp breeze.
Alan R. Davis, of Chillicothe, Ohio, said he had a professional background in health care finance, and was attending the protest because of his deep concerns about that nation’s staggering debt. “The country is going broke,” he said.
As for controlling medical costs, Mr. Davis did not have any ready solutions. He said that last December, his wife, Jennifer, had a heart transplant at the Cleveland Clinic. But he said he had no idea what it had cost. Her insurance coverage has an annual deductible of $4,000. After that, he said, everything was covered “100 percent.”
Mr. Davis said he did not trust Democrats’ assertions that the health care bill would be deficit neutral. “Whether it’s deficit neutral at this stage is someone’s guess, it’s an educated guess,” he said.
Mr. Davis said Americans needed to think more about the quality of life, rather than the length of life. He said that he and his wife had just such a discussion before she went forward with her heart transplant, at age 55.
Art Scevola, a financial consultant from Portland, Ore., said that he felt a mission to come to Washington. “It’s time to make a stand,” he said. “We want to see limited government, not more taxes put in our face. We don’t believe our health care system entirely broken. We need to slow down, stop and start over with this legislation.”
Mr. Scevola said that he had health insurance through his employer. “Kaiser Permanente,” he said proudly. “They are the best on the West Coast.”
******************************************************************************
So, I am sitting at my dining room table with my girlfriend, and a couple of our close friends and two of our neighbors are over here, and we are listening to the Rush Limbaugh show, and we find out that the 'AARP' is supporting this "Obamacare Nightmare".
The conversation stopped, and we all just looked at each other in astonishment, and suddenly, the cell phones came out and calls to other friends who are AARP memberswere being made, and then our friends started calling the AARP offices and telling them that "if they continue to support this Obama Healthcare Plan, all memberships would be CANCELLED. And our friends started taking their AARP cards out and began CUTTING THEM UP! CUT THE CARDS UP! LOL!
This is a message to any insurance company that is supporting this healthcare nightmare--if you do, you lose our support.
My friends asked me to post this on here in order to help support them in this fight, so, that is why I posted this. Start calling the AARP and tell them that if they support this, you will drop your memberships.
Thank you.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
What will McChrystal do if he doesn't get more troops?
By Colbert King
November 2, 2009; 11:36 AM ET
Washington Post opinion Page
All eyes are on the White House, where President Obama will soon make a decision on the way forward in Afghanistan. But it pays to keep an eye on the Kabul headquarters of senior American and NATO commander Gen. Stanley H. McChrystal. If, as is being widely rumored in Washington, Obama ends up not going along with McChrystal’s request for a reported 40,000 troops to support a sustained, substantial counterinsurgency commitment to achieve victory in Afghanistan, what will McChrystal do?
McChrystal is a consequential figure. He is one of the pioneers of counterterrorism and a highly intelligent, reliable, and well regarded general. His standing in the Pentagon and NATO and his professional reputation are on the line.
After all, McChrystal is the top military officer Obama dispatched to assess the Afghan situation on the ground. Having found a dangerously deteriorating situation, McChrystal, as instructed, proposed a strategy up through the chain of command to the White House that he concluded has the best chance of staving off defeat in what Obama has called a “war of necessity.” McChrystal wants to pursue a counterinsurgency strategy that focuses on protecting civilians, winning over cities and building infrastructure -- a strategy that calls for more manpower on top of the 68,000 U.S. troops already there and a much longer time horizon.
McChrystal has made it clear that he does not support the more limited campaign pushed by Vice President Biden that stresses a counterterrorism effort against Al Qaeda along the Pakistani border with missiles and drones.
If Obama agrees with McChrystal’s goals and strategy yet scales down the mission by sending fewer troops, will the general salute like a good soldier and carry on, as the White House would wish? Or will McChrystal conclude that he has been second-guessed by poll-driven civilians outside the military, that he has been handed a stripped-down mission that cannot succeed and which will only endanger the men and women entrusted to him?
Will he decide that he can no longer serve as Obama’s war commander? Because an Afghan strategy crafted around a table in the White House will be all Obama’s, even if it draws upon some ideas of McChrystal.
Yes, watch the White House. But keep a close eye on Stanley McChrystal.
*********************************************************************************
Wow. That is a really good question. What WILL General McChrystal do, if the Obama administration continues to procrastinate on this issue?
Now, I am by no means an expert on politics, war, or anything of that nature (which is the reason WHY I started this blog--to LEARN), but, if you appoint someone who is deemed as 'consequential' and considered to be highly intelligent, and reliable, and you tell him/her to make an assessment of the situation of a war, and they tell you what they need and when they need it, WHY in God's name would you continue to take your time on making a decision, knowing that this man is relying on YOU for help?
Now, my question is this: If Obama continues to put off making a decision on whether or not to send more troops to this Generaal (which he appointed) do you think it is fair to say that the General may decide to have an 'uprising' of his own? Would it be too far fetched to assume that General McChrystal may try to go against the Obama administration in some way, that may cause the president some major political problems?
Well, I think the next few days (or weeks) are going to be very crucial indeed, and we may see something very interesting start to transpire. What do you think?
November 2, 2009; 11:36 AM ET
Washington Post opinion Page
All eyes are on the White House, where President Obama will soon make a decision on the way forward in Afghanistan. But it pays to keep an eye on the Kabul headquarters of senior American and NATO commander Gen. Stanley H. McChrystal. If, as is being widely rumored in Washington, Obama ends up not going along with McChrystal’s request for a reported 40,000 troops to support a sustained, substantial counterinsurgency commitment to achieve victory in Afghanistan, what will McChrystal do?
McChrystal is a consequential figure. He is one of the pioneers of counterterrorism and a highly intelligent, reliable, and well regarded general. His standing in the Pentagon and NATO and his professional reputation are on the line.
After all, McChrystal is the top military officer Obama dispatched to assess the Afghan situation on the ground. Having found a dangerously deteriorating situation, McChrystal, as instructed, proposed a strategy up through the chain of command to the White House that he concluded has the best chance of staving off defeat in what Obama has called a “war of necessity.” McChrystal wants to pursue a counterinsurgency strategy that focuses on protecting civilians, winning over cities and building infrastructure -- a strategy that calls for more manpower on top of the 68,000 U.S. troops already there and a much longer time horizon.
McChrystal has made it clear that he does not support the more limited campaign pushed by Vice President Biden that stresses a counterterrorism effort against Al Qaeda along the Pakistani border with missiles and drones.
If Obama agrees with McChrystal’s goals and strategy yet scales down the mission by sending fewer troops, will the general salute like a good soldier and carry on, as the White House would wish? Or will McChrystal conclude that he has been second-guessed by poll-driven civilians outside the military, that he has been handed a stripped-down mission that cannot succeed and which will only endanger the men and women entrusted to him?
Will he decide that he can no longer serve as Obama’s war commander? Because an Afghan strategy crafted around a table in the White House will be all Obama’s, even if it draws upon some ideas of McChrystal.
Yes, watch the White House. But keep a close eye on Stanley McChrystal.
*********************************************************************************
Wow. That is a really good question. What WILL General McChrystal do, if the Obama administration continues to procrastinate on this issue?
Now, I am by no means an expert on politics, war, or anything of that nature (which is the reason WHY I started this blog--to LEARN), but, if you appoint someone who is deemed as 'consequential' and considered to be highly intelligent, and reliable, and you tell him/her to make an assessment of the situation of a war, and they tell you what they need and when they need it, WHY in God's name would you continue to take your time on making a decision, knowing that this man is relying on YOU for help?
Now, my question is this: If Obama continues to put off making a decision on whether or not to send more troops to this Generaal (which he appointed) do you think it is fair to say that the General may decide to have an 'uprising' of his own? Would it be too far fetched to assume that General McChrystal may try to go against the Obama administration in some way, that may cause the president some major political problems?
Well, I think the next few days (or weeks) are going to be very crucial indeed, and we may see something very interesting start to transpire. What do you think?
Monday, November 2, 2009
Karzai win complicates White House strategy for Afghanistan
By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 2, 2009; 1:43 PM
Afghan President Hamid Karzai's election by default Monday confirms at least a week earlier than expected that the Obama administration will continue for the foreseeable future to have the same mercurial partner in Afghanistan.
Karzai was expected to win the Nov. 7 runoff election easily and continue in the role he has held for nearly eight years, just as President Obama enters the final stage of deciding whether to escalate U.S. involvement in the war.
But the departure of Karzai's chief rival, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah, deprives him of a genuine win at the polls and potentially undermines the Obama administration's goal of building a legitimate government in Kabul.
Obama, congressional leaders and the U.S. commander on the ground, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, have made clear that the success of any strategy the White House eventually settles on will depend on the Afghan government's ability to improve its credibility among the people.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama planned to telephone Karzai shortly since the runoff election was called off.
Senior administration officials were encouraged last month when Karzai accepted a second round of voting following the deeply flawed August election. He won that vote with more than the 50 percent needed to avoid a runoff, but a U.N.-backed review later determined that nearly a third of his votes were fraudulent.
His acceptance of a runoff, administration officials say, was far more important in ensuring the legitimacy of the election process than Abdullah's participation in it. Abdullah trailed Karzai by double digits after the first round even after Karzai was stripped of the fraudulent votes.
Karzai said Monday that he wanted the runoff to go forward, given that Abdullah's name would still appear on the already printed ballots. It was an acknowledgement that his victory without a vote will almost certainly leave his administration weaker among Afghans than it would have been after a clean election. Throughout the weekend, as Abdullah's threat to quit turned into his announcement to do so, senior administration officials drew parallels between the Afghan election tumult and domestic politics.
One senior administration official said Abdullah, who had been seeking a power-sharing arrangement with Karzai after the first round, was following a political strategy often seen in U.S. elections. At no time does a candidate not expected to win have more leverage than just before the vote, the official said.
"This does not, in our view, affect the legitimacy of the process," the official said. "It does present an opportunity to shift to a new phase in Afghanistan."
Whether it does undermine Karzai's legitimacy will be decided ultimately by the Afghan people. But the relatively mild way Abdullah left the race -- angry but never calling for a boycott -- could help Karzai and his U.S. partners consolidate power around his new administration.
Abdullah criticized Karzai for refusing to take the steps he had demanded to ensure a fair second-round of voting, but in a tone that administration officials described as "moderate."
One senior administration official involved in the review process said the administration hopes Abdullah "continues to remain involved in Afghan politics and have a voice in the country's future," a signal he would be more helpful on the inside of any Afghan government or political process than as an outside critic.
Obama is scheduled to take up the review again this week in meetings with military leaders and his civilian advisers.
He had planned to announce his decision on U.S. strategy for the country after the Nov. 7 vote, waiting for a government accepted by Afghans to emerge from what would likely have been a messy aftermath before doing so. That lengthy -- and potentially violent -- process has now been avoided.
Obama's advisers say it is unclear how the Independent Election Commission's declaration of Karzai as the winner will affect the timing of his decision or the shape of the strategy he endorses.
McChrystal has asked for tens of thousands of additional troops to support his counter-insurgency strategy that focuses on protecting the Afghan population from the Taliban.
A legitimate and effective Afghan government is essential to the strategy because, as McChrystal notes in his grim assessment of the eight-year war, the Afghan public must be given an alternative to the Taliban.
The Karzai administration is widely viewed within Afghanistan as corrupt, and the Obama administration's review is identifying local leaders who might serve as more effective partners than the central government.
Karzai's reelection by default underscores the importance of the provincial governments and tribal leaders, who have traditionally exerted the most authority in a country with a historically weak central government.
But Obama will also be asking Karzai to do far more to reform his government, which administration officials who favor a more narrow counter-terrorism strategy in Afghanistan have long criticized. Those officials include Vice President Biden, who has had a rocky relationship with Karzai, now set to assume another five-year term.
*************************************************************************
Ok, I have to ask this question, because I am not quite able to grasp the reason(s) as to 'why' this runoff election in Afghanistan affects the Obama administration's decision on whether or not to send General McChrystal more troops.
Also, I haven't been able to ascertain why Abdullah Abdullah even dropped out of the race. I mean, what (or who) made him suddenly decide to just back out of this election?
I know from reading this article a couple of times (and I am still reading it) that Karzai's administration had been viewed as 'corrupt'. So, if the Afghan people (and/or our own government) wanted to put an end to the political corruption in Afghanistan, why would Abdullah back out of the election? Especially if he [Abdullah] had a fair shake at winning and if he would have run a "non-corrupt government"?
For some reason, this just doesn't sit well with me. I wonder if, and I promise you I am NOT trying to resort to my famous 'conspiracy theories', but, I wonder if, MAYBE, Abdullah was 'pressured' into backing out of this election, and if that was the case, why, and who was responsible?
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 2, 2009; 1:43 PM
Afghan President Hamid Karzai's election by default Monday confirms at least a week earlier than expected that the Obama administration will continue for the foreseeable future to have the same mercurial partner in Afghanistan.
Karzai was expected to win the Nov. 7 runoff election easily and continue in the role he has held for nearly eight years, just as President Obama enters the final stage of deciding whether to escalate U.S. involvement in the war.
But the departure of Karzai's chief rival, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah, deprives him of a genuine win at the polls and potentially undermines the Obama administration's goal of building a legitimate government in Kabul.
Obama, congressional leaders and the U.S. commander on the ground, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, have made clear that the success of any strategy the White House eventually settles on will depend on the Afghan government's ability to improve its credibility among the people.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama planned to telephone Karzai shortly since the runoff election was called off.
Senior administration officials were encouraged last month when Karzai accepted a second round of voting following the deeply flawed August election. He won that vote with more than the 50 percent needed to avoid a runoff, but a U.N.-backed review later determined that nearly a third of his votes were fraudulent.
His acceptance of a runoff, administration officials say, was far more important in ensuring the legitimacy of the election process than Abdullah's participation in it. Abdullah trailed Karzai by double digits after the first round even after Karzai was stripped of the fraudulent votes.
Karzai said Monday that he wanted the runoff to go forward, given that Abdullah's name would still appear on the already printed ballots. It was an acknowledgement that his victory without a vote will almost certainly leave his administration weaker among Afghans than it would have been after a clean election. Throughout the weekend, as Abdullah's threat to quit turned into his announcement to do so, senior administration officials drew parallels between the Afghan election tumult and domestic politics.
One senior administration official said Abdullah, who had been seeking a power-sharing arrangement with Karzai after the first round, was following a political strategy often seen in U.S. elections. At no time does a candidate not expected to win have more leverage than just before the vote, the official said.
"This does not, in our view, affect the legitimacy of the process," the official said. "It does present an opportunity to shift to a new phase in Afghanistan."
Whether it does undermine Karzai's legitimacy will be decided ultimately by the Afghan people. But the relatively mild way Abdullah left the race -- angry but never calling for a boycott -- could help Karzai and his U.S. partners consolidate power around his new administration.
Abdullah criticized Karzai for refusing to take the steps he had demanded to ensure a fair second-round of voting, but in a tone that administration officials described as "moderate."
One senior administration official involved in the review process said the administration hopes Abdullah "continues to remain involved in Afghan politics and have a voice in the country's future," a signal he would be more helpful on the inside of any Afghan government or political process than as an outside critic.
Obama is scheduled to take up the review again this week in meetings with military leaders and his civilian advisers.
He had planned to announce his decision on U.S. strategy for the country after the Nov. 7 vote, waiting for a government accepted by Afghans to emerge from what would likely have been a messy aftermath before doing so. That lengthy -- and potentially violent -- process has now been avoided.
Obama's advisers say it is unclear how the Independent Election Commission's declaration of Karzai as the winner will affect the timing of his decision or the shape of the strategy he endorses.
McChrystal has asked for tens of thousands of additional troops to support his counter-insurgency strategy that focuses on protecting the Afghan population from the Taliban.
A legitimate and effective Afghan government is essential to the strategy because, as McChrystal notes in his grim assessment of the eight-year war, the Afghan public must be given an alternative to the Taliban.
The Karzai administration is widely viewed within Afghanistan as corrupt, and the Obama administration's review is identifying local leaders who might serve as more effective partners than the central government.
Karzai's reelection by default underscores the importance of the provincial governments and tribal leaders, who have traditionally exerted the most authority in a country with a historically weak central government.
But Obama will also be asking Karzai to do far more to reform his government, which administration officials who favor a more narrow counter-terrorism strategy in Afghanistan have long criticized. Those officials include Vice President Biden, who has had a rocky relationship with Karzai, now set to assume another five-year term.
*************************************************************************
Ok, I have to ask this question, because I am not quite able to grasp the reason(s) as to 'why' this runoff election in Afghanistan affects the Obama administration's decision on whether or not to send General McChrystal more troops.
Also, I haven't been able to ascertain why Abdullah Abdullah even dropped out of the race. I mean, what (or who) made him suddenly decide to just back out of this election?
I know from reading this article a couple of times (and I am still reading it) that Karzai's administration had been viewed as 'corrupt'. So, if the Afghan people (and/or our own government) wanted to put an end to the political corruption in Afghanistan, why would Abdullah back out of the election? Especially if he [Abdullah] had a fair shake at winning and if he would have run a "non-corrupt government"?
For some reason, this just doesn't sit well with me. I wonder if, and I promise you I am NOT trying to resort to my famous 'conspiracy theories', but, I wonder if, MAYBE, Abdullah was 'pressured' into backing out of this election, and if that was the case, why, and who was responsible?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Ben Ferguson Show
Ronald Reagan Speech--A very good lesson for Obama to learn!
Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.
