Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiJimmy Carter: ‘Hamid Karzai Has Stolen the Election’
ATLANTA -- Former President Jimmy Carter, who has monitored elections in countries across the globe, called the elections in Afghanistan "despicable" Tuesday.
![[Former US president Jimmy Carter pictured during a press conferance following his meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus on June.
(AFP/File/Louai Beshara)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/jimmycarter_karzaielection.jpg "jimmycarter_karzaielection.jpg")
"Hamid Karzai has stolen the election," the former president told a small group of donors to his Carter Center in Atlanta. "Now the question is whether he gets away with it."
Official counts have given the Afghan president, who was installed after a U.S.-lead coalition toppled the Taliban in 2001, 54 percent of the vote. His main challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, alleged fraud and a recount is currently underway.
Carter said that the election reminded him of past fraudulent elections he had seen, where only 20 percent of people in a particular precinct were recorded as voting -- with 100 percent of the vote in that precinct going to a particular candidate.
"This is something which President Obama is struggling with," Carter said.
Carter's comments came as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, said the U.S. military would need to send more troops to Afghanistan to battle the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
"A properly resourced counter-insurgency probably means more forces and without question, more time and more commitment to the protection of the Afghan people and to the development of good governance," Mullen told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Obama has already sent tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan than his predecessor, George W. Bush.
In his comments Tuesday, former President Carter strongly disagreed with the policy.
"Americans have turned against the war in Afghanistan," Carter said. "Every time we launch one of our unmanned drones from Kansas and kill 100 people, we make 100,000 new enemies."
Rather than increasing the number of troops in Aghanistan, Carter said, "I would negotiate with locals."
Speaking about the decline of violence in U.S.-occupied in Iraq, Carter argued it wasn't the surge of American troops that had caused an increase in calm, but General David Petraeus' willingness to "pay bribes and pay Iraqi soldiers."
The same strategy, he said, could also be used in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, American and other coalition troops continue to die at an escalating rate in Afghanistan. An improvised bomb attack killed two U.S. service members Monday in southern Afghanistan where U.S. and NATO troops have stepped up their operations in recent months, NATO said.
According to the U.S. Department of Defense, as of Thursday morning at least 746 members of the U.S. military had died in the Afghan war since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001.
NAM editor Aaron Glantz is a Rosalynn Carter Fellow for Mental Health Journalism at the Carter Center, and author of "The War Comes Home: Washington's Battle Against America's Veterans" (UC Press).
40 Comments so far
Show Allblah blah blah blah blah ur all like a bunch of robots spewing the same garbage
Thanks for joining in there, Governor.
Well of course he did, Jimmy. What did you expect?
Karzai: Afghanistan's Nguyen Van Thieu.
Vietnam was an attempt to install a puppet government. So was Iraq. So is Afghanistan. None have worked, and none will.
The longer Obama pursues these immoral (and illegal) wars, the more damage will be done to our national stature, economy and psyche.
While Carter is correct about Karzai's corruption and the blow back that missile attacks cause, the negotiations and the payments he recommends should be focused on humanitarian aid and infrastructure rebuilding, and should be administered by the United Nations, not the U.S. military.
What Carter should have said is the U.S. stole the election, not Karzai, as he is just another one of our puppets. What you have in the Afghanistan elections is 2 corrupt drug lords, but one of them is evidently not our thug!
Say, Mr. Jimmy. Why weren't you and Al Gore standing shoulder to shoulder on the WH porch telling the last election thieves, B/C, to take a hike? Maybe we only see the crooked politics in Other Countries.
actualy, Paul Revere, from what I can gather, either one of them is acceptable to the US as the face of the occupation. They are both well established leaders from the pre-Taliban era, ie, their corruption is what brought the Taliban to power. The US IS disappointed at the unavoidably obvious ballot stuffing that is going on. It spoils one of the shifting rationales for the invasion/occupation, the "democracy promotion" story-line.
jlocke: Yeah you are probably right, because it is just like in our country, the power elite owns both parties so the elections are just a fascade to make the masses think they have a choice.
"Americans have turned against the war in Afghanistan," Carter said. "Every time we launch one of our unmanned drones from Kansas and kill 100 people, we make 100,000 new enemies."
I think this is the fundamental point that no pr blitz on the sunday talk shows is going to change. If Obama thinks he can con the American people, he may be right, but making Afghans love the occupation, I don't think so.
"Of course, Jimmy Carter "is wrong," as Glenn Beck would gladly tell all willing to listen to his sage rhetoric, propaganda, and fiction. How dare that hillbilly, like myself open his mouth about the emperor having no clothes. I'm 'just shocked." Don't we "know our place" in this system? We and blacks, other people of color, and many others are "just getting too uppity."
AD..
a number of posters here comment on ex president carter critically and disparagingly, without offering a reason. is it the supposed loss of face in the conflict with the iranian students? would it have been better to have immediately stormed the embassy with possible several deaths of american citizens - rather than wait it out with minimal casualties. the botched rescue effort was not his fault.
the way i see it - there was nothing illegal with the magnitude of the contra affair on his watch; no honduran siege;no bay of pigs;no vietnam ; no hand shakes with iraqi dictators;no dead marines in lebanon; a major peace effort that at least resulted in a cold peace between 2 major countries in the mideast; and a sensible energy plan (with an emphasis on conservation)that was 30 years ahead of its time and will remain the linchpin of all efforts to slow global warming. if this is the "worst " president, we have truly incorporated the language from "1984"
supporting resistance in afghanistan against soviet rule did result in hemorrhaging the soviets. if subsequent administrations had not ignored afghanistan, perhaps (can we rewrite the past?)the taliban would not have come to power. and perhaps if the us citizens and congress were more vigilant, hundreds of billions could have been transferred from pentagon coffers (no soviet existential threat, if it were such) to public good.
The reason so many people on this site post critical remarks about Carter is b/c he is a CON.
You mention the Iranian incident but you obviously don't know the actual facts.
Carter gave a state dinner in honor of the Shah of Iran where he also gave a toast where he said the Shah, and forgive me for paraphrasing here, "is one of the greatest leaders in the world today, a great man, and a great leader for Iran."
Look it up there is video of it on youtube.
You say "no hand shakes with Iraqi dictators" well you're right Carter only did hand shakes with Iranian dictators!
The leaders of the Iranian hostage team have admitted that it was Carters display of admiration for the Shah that was the final straw for the Iranians.
Carter not only sat idle why the Embassy was held hostage but he was to a large degree responsible for it in the first place. Oh and yes the botched rescue effort was his fault. He was the President! He gave the order and Americans troops died b/c of it and no hostages were rescued. Failure.
Until he admits his fault which he still refused to do he is worth of no respect.
Study your history next time...
You also bring up his energy plan.
It was ahead of its time. We would all be better off today if it had been listened to.
If only Carter would have been even a half decent leader maybe somebody would have listened to him!
A good President isn't just somebody who is intelligent but also somebody who can lead. Carter couldn't convince the public that the sky is blue.
i think it's ok for jimmy to speak up here about karzai- no one else is doing it.
on the other hand, there are lots of other reasons not to like him. Starting with his organizing the Taliban, asking bin Laden to please round up all the Islamic extremists he could find, bring them to Afghanistan then flim flam the russians into invading.
so in a way it is possible that without all this meddling back then, none of this would be happening now. Afghanistan had a pretty good government once- women could wear what they wanted and girls could go to school, all that stuff. also some land reform, always anathema to us. presidents, but cool with the ruskies. jimmy's unpronounceable secretary of state takes most of the credit for all this, i know, but jimmy was president, it was on his watch.
so if Talibs or bin Laden really did do 9/11, then we can blame him for that too.
You are the first to suggest the Taliban had something to do with 9/11. Even Bush and Cheney didn't fantasize that.
You neglect to mention that it was Ronald Reagan's "October Surprise" that kept the American hostages in Iran so that Reagan could defeat Carter in the U.S. presidential election. That wasn't Carter's fault.
As to your intelligence vs. leadership argument, everyone agrees that Reagan was a great leader, but not intelligent. Are you inferring that Reagan was the better president?
Well, at least Carter was a good peanut farmer. And he has helped to build some houses for the poor. And he admitted to having lust in his heart. That's almost as good as admitting to smoking pot, but but not inhaling. As presidents go, he was (is) pretty nice.
Oh, and who, Nat, agrees that Reagan was a great leader? He was a bad actor, a terrible governor, and a very scary president. But he did look good in his photo ops. You can hardly tell he was suffering from dementia.
Well, point taken. I guess I meant that in the corporate media world he is praised as a "leader." Dumb as a bag of hammers, but a leader.
He did, however, manage to rewrite tax law so that the ultra-wealthy would pay less tax than median-income folks. Certainly, such a sea change took leadership. Especially given that it was so harmful to the vast majority.
In my book, Reagan was the worst president in modern times, until George W. Bush came along and surpassed him.
Carter was a disappointment, but still head and shoulders above a sleaze like Reagan.
Reagan developed a high level of skill for reading Peggy Noonan's bullshit aloud.
q
Peerhaps you missed the fact that it was Carter that pulled our support for the Shah that allowed his defeat. That is a historical fact.
I'm no fan of his Presidency, but give his due. He did do some good things.
As a matter of fact, he was maybe the only president in the last forty years who also did some good things.....
This is true, although it sets the bar awfully low. Furthermore, most of the good things Carter has done date from after his presidency.
1. Drones are not flown out of Kansas to Afghanistan.
2. General David Petraeus' willingness to "pay bribes and pay Iraqi soldiers." If Former President Carter is referring to paying the Sons of Iraq, the program was successful in reducing violence. The Sons of Iraq were later disbanded and most were absorbed into the Iraq Security Forces.
This is probably an unclear modifier.
It's unlikely the author means that the drones are launched from Kansas, but rather that drones from Kansas are launched.
Ah, this English! Mayhaps we should all be building with sand and clay.
1. Drone launches are controlled from military bases in the U.S.
2. Yes, Carter is referring to bribing and paying the Sons of Iraq, and he is clearly suggesting the military pursue a similar policy in Afghanistan because it worked in Iraq.
Your critique is lame.
The computerized control and launching centers are in the US. The drones themselves come from somewhere closer to our enemies in Irapakafghiranistan, you know, the bad guys.
Joe
Obviously we have succeeded in exporting American-style democracy to Afghanistan.
Time to leave.
q
Bingo, Q!
Maybe we're staying on hoping they'll pay more for ads.
Since Carter and Brzezinski instructed the CIA to fund, arm and train the fanatical, extremist and terrorist al-Qaeda, perhaps Carter wants to see the Taliban back in power. A sleazeball pretending to be Mr. Human-Rights. Go away.
As for the elections in Afghanistan, they're as futile as they are here. Only candidates hand-picked and financed by the head of corporations are even allowed to run in the first place (Bush, Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Gore, McCain, etc) so there isn't the slightest danger of a leader being really chosen by the people. Ever.
You are so right about candidates being financed by the head of corporations. But you are also wrong about Carter. He has put his actions where his mouth is. How many houses for the poor have you contributed your time and labor to, waldo. Let's ease off with the mud slinging.
waldo-evans posts right-wing propaganda. al-Qaeda didn't exist when Carter was president, so of course he didn't "fund" it.
The "futility of democracy" is also right-wing propaganda, since that claim is always directed at left wingers.
By contrast, right wingers are told: participate in the theater of democracy, because it works! The buses will be there at 8 a.m. Here are your talking points. Here are suggested signs you should make and carry. Here are your wardrobe suggestions. And, remember to post comments (under assumed names) on left-wing web forums saying it's "futile" to participate in the democratic process.
Falsehoods and discouragement of the opposition. We see it again and again. It's how the far-right 20% control the public agenda.
Another republican drone trying to disparage a respected figure on this board.
Whatever Carter may or may not have done as president, there has been nothing phony about his human rights efforts since leaving office.
q
Look, I'm active in working for Palestinian rights. Carter is helping that cause. He's not as outspoken as I think he should be but at least he's out there telling what he sees to be the truth, blatant as it is.
However, I was around when Carter offered safe haven to the Shah of Iran - a big mistake and a flaw on his reputation. He was a mediocre president, a nuclear physicist who believes in "safe nuclear energy," an oxymoron if there ever was one.
Still, the older he gets the better.
Yes lets "turn the page" on carters past, we gotta look ahead and forget everything else... I mean nobody is perfect right? sounds so familiar...
Being president of the usa means forgetting about whats right and moral unless its what the powers that be want and order.
We agree. I believe Carter was one of our worst Presidents. But he was then and is now a fine human being, a good person and walks his talk. A tireless worker for humanitarian goals. And when he worked on Habitat houses, he didn't do it for a photo op, he came for the day (and more sometimes) with his own well worn tool belt and tools.
Carter proved that the qualities needed for the presidency of our blighted country are not kindness and compassion. He was a pretty poor president, and that's one of the best things you can say of anyone.
Jimmy Carter is now one of my favorite human beings. I think he had an awakening after his term in office when the right wing cynically manipulated the situation and used the hostages as pawns to defeat him.
Joe
I loved him out of office! I had the honor to work with him on a habitat raising in Ga in 1990. Didn't speak to him and I was 2 houses away from his, but I can tell you he worked as hard as any of us and stayed as long. I watched him graciously talk to anyone that spoke to him, never ceasing to work and at lunchtime I don't think he got to eat because of the 2 deep around him.
I talked to his wife as she is a whole lot better looking.
He is a fine man aside from being a good one.
Stolen Elections is what the Neo-Cons call Democracy.
Of course he stole it. With the help of the US. He was installed there to do one thing, and one thing only: to ensure that the gas pipeline is protected. He was not installed to promote democracy or any other freedom agenda.