INDCJournal: The Election Stands<b><i> (UPDATED with Response to Bitter Leftist Carping)</i></b>

« CBS News: Still "Digging" | Main | FLASHBACK - October 3, 1938

All That�s Old is New Again (UPDATED with Animal Cracker Challenge!) »

October 10, 2004

The Election Stands (UPDATED with Response to Bitter Leftist Carping)

Posted by Bill

The WaPo:

Controversy clouding Afghanistan's historic first presidential election eased Sunday when several major opposition candidates backed off from assertions that voter fraud and errors at polling places had rendered Saturday's vote meaningless and illegitimate.
...
Robert Barry, who headed the European election monitoring delegation, said the opposition candidates' demands to nullify the vote were "unjustified" and would "put into question the expressed will of millions of citizens." He called for a "thorough and transparent investigation" of the polling complaints and said they should be "dealt with as the law provides."

What a great weekend for Democracy.

UPDATE: Armies of Liberation:

A generation previously disempowered has grasped the reins of national power and voted for the first time. Women previously locked in their homes in ignorance and fear stood in line for hours in the snow to wield their power. Hamid Kharzai�s opposition may dispute the quality of the ink, but no one can dispute the millions who have claimed their right of self determination.

UPDATE: In contrast, we have the requisite sour grapes from the likes of a Nation magazine correspondent:

"Imposing Imperial Democracy" - Upcoming Afghan Elections Marked by U.S. Pressure, Fraud and Corruption

AMY GOODMAN: We go first to Kabul, to Christian Parenti reporting for The Nation magazine. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Christian.

CHRISTIAN PARENTI: Thank you for having me on.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you tell us about what's happening in this lead up to Saturday's election?

CHRISTIAN PARENTI: Well, Kabul is very quiet today. The whole city is sort of on lockdown. Flights inside the country have been canceled and there hasn't been as much violence as people expect. There was a rocket attack last night. Two rockets came in towards the U.S. base, as you said earlier, and landed nearby and one went off and one didn't. Other than that, things have been fairly quiet. The overall thing to report is that Afghans are not as excited about this election as international observers are. Most Afghans are very, very � cynical would actually be too strong a word, they�re just very apathetic about the whole process.

(Emphasis mine)

"Liberal?" I don't think so. In contrast:

Afghan election staff stand behind ballot boxes full of votes at Herat's main mosque polling station in the first direct presidential election in Herat, Afghanistan (news - web sites) on Saturday, Oct. 9, 2004. (AP Photo/Hasan Sarbakhshian)

* The voter enthusiasm for Saturday's first democratic poll in Afghanistan was formidable.

* Karimullah, 50, a civil servant in Kabul, said Saturday was one of the most important days in his life.

"Men, women, voted and it was a free choice," he said. "I voted in the mosque and everyone was joyful."

Voters line up to vote at a polling station in Kabul Saturday, Oct. 9. 2004. (AP Photo/Emilio Morenatti)

* Afghans from remote Hindu Kush villages to dusty southern Taliban heartlands were jubilant at their first chance to have a say in their country's destiny, and some were bewildered by the boycott call.

* Claims of voting irregularities had tainted the jubilation among electors but the polls were hailed around the world for the strong turnout and lack of violence.

* In Afghanistan, optimism swelled among many who cast their ballots.

"For the first time, Afghans are able to choose their own leader," said Kabul shopkeeper Ahmed Jan. "From today, things will only get better in the country."

Afghan men take to the streets and dance celebrating the presidential elections in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar Saturday, Oct. 9, 2004. (AP Photo/Elizabeth Dalziel)

Note from INDC Journal to Mr. Parenti and any other partisan, automaton hacks at The Nation magazine and the ironically titled, "Democracy Now:"

Piss off. And stay off of the local hash.

(Requisite bitter moonbat link via Gordon)

Posted by Bill at October 10, 2004 08:26 PM | TrackBack (10)

Comments

But what about the 1,000,000 African-Americans who were purged from the voter rolls in Afghanistan? We wuz robbed! Karzai was selected not elected! AIEEE!

Posted by: Watcher at October 10, 2004 09:56 PM

awesome.

Posted by: sarahk at October 10, 2004 09:59 PM

Apathetic? What I saw (not firsthand, of course, but in various news sources) was a bunch of people beside themselves with joy and excitement. People don't come out, stand in long lines, risk physical attack, and use the words they did in describing their feelings, if they are apathetic. Are these people just stupid (the reporters I mean) or are they incapable of seeing that some things are actually positive in the world, even in remote, dusty places like Afghanistan?

Posted by: kent at October 10, 2004 11:25 PM

Hah. Christian Parenti. I read that name, read the bullshit he spouted, and assumed he had to be Michael Parenti's (that lying little weasel) son.

A little googling revealed he is.

That tells you all you need to know.

Posted by: Russell Wardlow at October 11, 2004 12:07 AM

Oh yeah. INDCent Billy in da hizz-ouse...

Posted by: willow at October 11, 2004 12:47 AM

Well, the report I got from my brother (he runs one of the kitchens for NATO/IFOR in Kabul) was that his Afghan staff were ecstatic at what was going on. Freedom? Democracy? Liberty? Bring it on.
They then reverted to form and refused to explain any of their recipes to him telling him to just " shut up and watch, white boy" which, while perhaps not polite, is an encouraging indication of self-confidence, an assertion of individual rights.

Posted by: Tim Worstall at October 11, 2004 06:06 AM

Wheeeeeeeeee! Democracy is on the march!

Posted by: American Soldier's Mom at October 11, 2004 07:57 AM

Even in most of the MSM coverage, where they led with the ink controversy, all the quotes and descriptions of the people indicated a happiness and an enthusiasm for their nations first democratic election.

I think those comments were sour grapes because the big news story they were hoping for didn't occur-huge bombs at all the polling places with lots of casualties, so they could all crow about what a disaster the election was.

If the only thing to harp on was the issue of ink for a few hours, you know things probably went really well.

Posted by: Just Me at October 11, 2004 08:26 AM

What do you say to the assertion that the election's weren't "fair" because the only canadites running were those placed there by the US government? I, of course think this is total BS, but I talked to a couple people in scotland and that is what they told me.

Posted by: T.O.D. at October 11, 2004 10:03 AM

What do you say to the assertion that the election's weren't "fair" because the only canadites running were those placed there by the US government?

I say that ...

1. as far as I'm aware, the candidates were individuals that had little previous involvement with the Taliban, including some warlords that have alwyas held positions of power within Afghan society. That is the limit of my knowledge.

2. Instead of uninformed rumor-mongering, tell your Scottish friends to start a blog and post evidence for those assertions.

3. A large portion of me doesn't care. If the candidates were exclusively vetted by America, the system will probably fail because of natural dissent. Eliminating naturally antagonistic candidates seems like a bright idea in a fledgling democracy.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 11, 2004 10:25 AM

Good points. I'm from the states, doing some consulting over there and I almost lost it with him because no matter what I said, he always brought up his 3 talking points:

1. Election wasn't legit in Afganistan because they were all US appointed people running;

2. US is "carpet bombing" civilians in Afganistan and Iraq and the UN could do a better job. He doesn't know what the UN would specifically do, but they sure as hell wouldn't "carpet bomb" civilians!

and 3. the CIA was the mastermind of the Anthrax scare of 2001 in order to scare the US to justify a war in the middle east.

Of course he had no facts to back this up in any way, but he kept repeating this over and over again. I eventually gave up the converstaion with him.

Just wanted to remind everyone that there are people like this all over the world, most importantly in the US. Just an example of the stupidity we have to face day after day...

Posted by: T.O.D. at October 11, 2004 11:07 AM

My comment to Ms. Parenti would be much the same as yours:

F**k off and quit drinking the bong water.

Posted by: El Jefe at October 11, 2004 11:37 AM