Grap a mop

[Political Waves]

Hello dearhearts. I'm back.

 

Living below the poverty level presents any number of challenges but the one that distresses me most is the use of time; meals, for instance, are never quick and easy -- they're always 'from scratch.' Nothing is ever fixed, it's patched, for good or ill; a whole other level of Pea Patch. The worst is household emergency. Five days of storms have left the shingles on the old homestead with the integrity of post-it notes; it rains inside now. And you never know where to put the buckets -- the leaks move around like a PacMan game. I've developed an ear for drips ... the tiniest little plop-plop sound has me scrambling. When the sun finally came out I spent some of it cleaning up the mess -- and some turning my face up to it. So apologies for my absence; still we didn't miss much since everything is moving so slowly toward resolution.

This whole notion of foot-dragging ... a supposed deficit in the presidents character ... should have us re-thinking how this works with him; over and over again, he's allowed others to slit their own throats while he waits for a timely moment to insert himself. Some say too slowly; others are still watching this carefully -- I'm one of them. Regarding McChrystal's assessment, the Pub demand that Obama get tougher leaves me cold; I'm putting my money on smarter.

Still, if he'd allowed more of the push for accountability over the Bushies behavior , he might not have to 'own' so much of this mess. He reminds us often what he inherited, but the Pubs call that whining; if we had Rove or Cheney or some of the minions in the hot seat, he could point back to their conniving and not have to say a word. At a recent fund raiser with Nancy Pelosi he said it this way:

"Another way of putting it is when, you know, I'm busy and Nancy's busy with our mop cleaning up somebody else's mess -- we don't want somebody sitting back saying, you're not holding the mop the right way." Obama paused for applause. "Why don't you grab a mop, why don't you help clean up." Obama continued riffing -- "You're not mopping fast enough. That's a socialist mop" -- but sobered up quickly. "Grab a mop -- let's get to work."

Today we'll look at the Afghanistan quandary: if you're like me, you've received scads of e-mail forwards about Muslims that want to kill us in our sleep unless we convert or wipe out our Infidel DNA signature. This is not true of Muslims as a whole -- but it IS true of the Taliban. I understand why the Prez feels he can't ignore its renewal; and he also has the common sense to understand he can't 'kill an idea.' This is extremism and it's bullied its way into the money to achieve its ends; they're in the protection racket and the opium trade, they're flush enough to provide clean streets and schools and some modicum of stability in an otherwise chaotic landscape. Most importantly, they're people of the Prophet -- and we aren't.

The Dubby gave us Karzai, and then turned his back on Afghanistan in search of his Daddy's old enemy, taking eyes off the Petri dish of fanaticism that stirred this whole pot. Karzai isn't so much a 'bad' Afghani as he is a typical one; his adopting Sharia law not long ago should tell us all we need to know, even though he recanted after an international hissy fit. Now his election results have finally hit the fan -- took long enough, with so many crying foul. Obama has wisely refused to accept them at face value; because he doesn't have to, as he did with Iran's twisted result. He has made it plain that without a stable government entity with which to partner, everything goes on hold militarily. Our former president would have already rushed in there, six-shooters blazing. There's a lot to be said about intelligence; we should pay more attention to that.

 

So there will be no big announcement about troops until the election is sorted out; and Karzai is not behaving well about the possibility of a re-vote. This is acting as a giant e-brake on the whole AfPak process; you'll find the reads, below ... and as bonus, the first 2 (of 5) NYT installments of 7 Months, 10 Days in Captivity by David Rohde, the reporter that recently escaped; it's an up-close, personal account that gives us a look at what the Taliban is ... and is not, and what it plans for the world.

In other developments, two versions of the Senate healthcare bill have gone behind closed doors with Harry Reid, Chris Dodd and Max Baucus to be pulled together; this is a good time to send demands to Reid, especially as the recent lobbying effort by the industry gave the nation a good look at its bullying tactics and power. The Option is the only way to police these bastards and demands for it are growing. A surprise, California's Jane Harmon and another Blue Dog Rep, Loretta Sanchez, have shifted toward the Option; it's getting more difficult to deny its necessity if we're to be fiscally responsible. And the public wants it; Ann Telnaes gives us illustration here.

Here's a piece of Good Newz for a change, read this article about an entire brigade that will NOT have to go to Iraq. You don't hear that too often; and we should share in the relief of the hearts of all those families.

And finally, from Free Press -- participate if you wish:

The FCC chairman has just called for new Net Neutrality rules, backed by President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and several congressional leaders. Now we need to complete the final lap -- signing Net Neutrality into law -- with a powerful, public show of support.

 

Me and Obama, mopping up,

Jude



White House casts doubt on Afghan reliability
ROBERT BURNS, Associated Press via Raw Story
Sunday, October 18th, 2009
http://rawstory.com/2009/10/white-house-casts-doubt-afghan-reliability/

President Barack Obama will not commit more U.S. troops to Afghanistan until he is convinced that the central government can be a credible and effective U.S. partner, a senior White House aide said Sunday.

But it was unclear whether Obama intends to accept the recommendation by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, for thousands more American troops and other resources in the 8-year-struggle to stabilize Afghanistan.

The central question before Obama, chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said, is "not how much troops you have, but whether in fact there's an Afghan partner."The issue of developing an effective Afghan central government has dogged the U.S. mission virtually from the war's start after the attacks against the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001. It gained new urgency after an Aug. 20 presidential election marred by charges of ballot-stuffing and voter coercion.

An election fraud investigation could lead to a runoff election between President Hamid Karzai and his top challenger, former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah.

A second round of balloting would have to be held before winter, which traditionally begins in mid-November. Once heavy snows block mountain passes, thereby limiting voter access to polling places, a runoff would have to wait until spring, leaving the country in political limbo for months as the Taliban gains strength.

Adding to the uncertainty is the prospect of Karzai's not accepting an outcome requiring a runoff.

"For the moment we are worried ... because it seems that not everybody is ready to accept the results," French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told reporters Sunday in Kabul, the Afghan capital. "They must accept the results."

The weakness of the Afghan government has undermined the U.S. and NATO military mission in several respects. It has created disillusionment among ordinary Afghans who then turn to the Taliban militants for security and other services. That has been an important factor in the Taliban's resurgence over the past four years.

In Sunday talk show interviews, Emanuel did not answer directly when asked whether Obama would wait for a final election outcome before deciding U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan. He repeatedly underlined doubts about the Kabul government as a reliable partner for the U.S.

 

"There's not a security force, an army, the type of services that are important for the Afghans to become true partners," Emanuel said. "It would be reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop level if, in fact, you haven't done a thorough analysis of whether, in fact, there's an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that the U.S. troops would create and become a true partner in governing."

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, who visited Kabul over the weekend, said Obama should wait until the election cloud has lifted.

"I don't see how President Obama can make a decision about the committing of our additional forces or even the further fulfillment of our mission that's here today without an adequate government in place or knowledge about what that government's going to be," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

Critics, including some Republicans in Congress, have blasted Obama for undertaking a lengthy review.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said Obama may be emboldening U.S. enemies.

"At some point, deliberation begins to look more like indecisiveness, which then becomes a way of emboldening our enemies," Cornyn said, "and causing our allies to question our resolve."

Emanuel provided no timeline for Obama to finish his Afghan review, which began in September. He said additional strategy sessions with the president's senior national security aides would be held over the next two weeks.

A leading figure in that review, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, headed to Asia and Europe on Sunday for talks that are expected to include a plea for NATO partners and Asian allies to continue contributing to the Afghan effort.

Kerry said a successful U.S. and NATO mission depends as much on the effectiveness of the Afghan government and the sufficiency of international civilian support as it does on the size of the U.S. military presence.

"It would be very hard, I think, for the president to make a commitment to `X' number of troops, whatever it might be, or to a new strategy, without knowing that all of the components of the strategy are indeed capable of being achieved," Kerry said, adding that the political and civilian components must be assured.

"And I'm not yet convinced that we're there," he said.

On the specifics of U.S. military strategy in Afghanistan, Kerry said he is convinced that narrowing the mission to a hunt for al-Qaida and other terrorists would be wrong. The counterterrorism effort must be part of a larger military mission that targets Taliban and other insurgent groups with conventional ground forces, he said.

Kerry and Emanuel were on CNN's "State of the Union" and CBS' "Face the Nation." Cornyn appeared on CBS. ++


Karzai Camp Hardens Its Line on Recount
Afghan President's Supporters Protest 'Foreign Interference' as Campaign Officials Cast Doubt on Results
ANAND GOPAL, Wall Street Journal
OCTOBER 19, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125587282013392519.html

KABUL -- Afghan President Hamid Karzai may not accept the results of a vote recount from the summer's general election, officials from his campaign hinted, adding a further twist to the already fraught post-poll political environment. On Sunday, his supporters began demonstrations against "foreign interference" in the elections.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his supporters are complaining of "foreign interference" in the elections.

As they await the results of a recount to try to adjust for widespread fraud, officials from the Karzai campaign began over the weekend to cast aspersions on the process, centering their criticism on the United Nations-backed Electoral Complaints Commission, which is re-tallying the numbers. The commission finished its audit Saturday, and is reviewing it before releasing it in coming days. If Mr. Karzai is found to have less than 50% of the vote, it could force a run-off with his top challenger, Abdullah Abdullah.

Karzai campaign spokesman Waheed Omar said Sunday that the recount process is being "politically manipulated" by outsiders and that the results may not be acceptable.

"The ECC is pretty much controlled by foreigners, and its foreign commissioners intervene in the process," said Maeen Mirstyal, a lawmaker and chief advisor to the Karzai campaign. The commission denies the charge.

Thousands of Mr. Karzai's supporters, wearing black, marched through the town of Spin Boldak in the southern province of Kandahar, near the Pakistani border. They chanted against "foreign interference" in the elections.

"The foreigners are trying to push a second round, and we are not going to participate this time," said Talim Khan, who marched in Spin Boldak. "They don't respect our votes. Despite threats that the Taliban will cut off our nose and ears we went to the polling station. We won't do so again."

Smaller protests took place in other parts of the province. Elsewhere, a group of Islamic scholars in the eastern part of the country issued statements decrying the ECC and calling the country "under occupation." A number of pro-Karzai lawmakers Sunday issued fiery denunciations in parliament of foreign meddling.

The demonstrations and Mr. Karzai's reluctance to accept a possible second round add to a tense situation, where Afghan government and Western credibility are at a low point and a resurgent Taliban have extended their reach and influence throughout the country. A number of foreign officials, including U.S. Senator John Kerry and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, were in Kabul this weekend to meet with all sides and try to come to a solution.

"We are concerned, because it seems that not everybody is ready to accept the results," Mr. Kouchner told reporters Sunday. He added that he hoped that the two sides would come to an agreement soon to end the stalemate.

Mr. Karzai won nearly 55% of the August ballot, according to the preliminary tally, but the investigation into allegations of widespread vote-rigging will most likely lead to the disqualification of between 10% to 15% of the votes, according to officials familiar with the process. Most of the ballots deemed fraudulent were for Mr. Karzai, officials said, which is expected to bring his vote share under 50% and force a runoff.

Karzai officials said that according to their calculations, Mr. Karzai should have more than 50% even after throwing out fraudulent votes. "If the ECC came up with their final numbers through a technical assessment, the result would be acceptable to everybody, even the president," Mr. Mirstyal said. "But if they bring his votes down below 50% and there is a runoff, it won't be acceptable to us."

ECC officials said only the commission is authorized to disqualify votes and calculations undertaken by candidates aren't valid. Although the commission finished its audit Saturday, it is reviewing its calculations before handing over the results to the Afghan Independent Election Commission, which conducted the polls.

The IEC will then announce the adjusted vote total and undertake preparations for a second round if needed; under Afghan law, that round must take place within two weeks of the announcement. But an official from the IEC, whose commissioners were appointed by Mr. Karzai, said they were "frantically" trying to find a way to avoid a second round.

A second round could pose tremendous challenges. Most of the election workers will be the same -- including those who helped engineer the fraud in the first round -- and the lack of government control in most of the south and east means that many places would be inaccessible to election observers. The insurgents are intent on disrupting the elections and keeping people away from the polls, something they were successful at doing the first time around.

Mr. Karzai and Dr. Abdullah have been under international pressure to come to a deal. The two sides stepped up talks this week, exploring the possibility of reserving some key ministries and governorships for Dr. Abdullah's backers. "A deal might be the only way out of this mess," said one Western official in Kabul.

The problem is compounded because Washington is caught in a bind: A second round risks angering Karzai supporters, mostly ethnic Pashtuns from the south and east of the country, the same demographic from which the Taliban recruits. But not holding a second round could disillusion Dr. Abdullah's supporters, mostly ethnic Tajiks from the north of the country who feel that Mr. Karzai is trying to steal the elections. ++


On Afghanistan, We Need a Policy, Not a Macho Hissy-Fit
Yifat Susskind, Common Dreams
Saturday, October 10, 2009
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/10/10-1

A small delegation from the women's peace group CODEPINK spent last week in Kabul, on a kind of listening tour, to refine their understanding of what women in Afghanistan want to see from the US.

They've returned saying just what MADRE has been saying since 2001: that the US needs to withdraw its military from Afghanistan and do so in a way that addresses the needs of people there. For MADRE, US obligations stem from the fact that Afghanistan's poverty, violence against women, and political corruption are, in part, results of US policy over the past 30 years.

So why is CODEPINK's co-founder Medea Benjamin being raked over the coals for allegedly "defecting" from the peace movement? The catalyst was a snarky article in the Christian Science Monitor that characterized Medea as "disappointed" when some of the women she met with in Kabul didn't support CODEPINK's call for a US troop withdrawal.  (Remind me again why all women are supposed to have the same political views?)

After the CSM falsely asserted that CODEPINK is "rethinking their position" on Afghanistan, Scott Horton posted a piece on Antiwar.com called, "Is Medea Benjamin Naïve or Just Confused?" From there, things got really nasty.

Justin Raimondo writing on Antiwar.com had a macho hissy-fit, calling CODEPINK "a gaggle of political whores."  The next day, blogger John Walsh tried to one-up Justin, suggesting that CODEPINK be renamed "Whores for Wars."

These sexist rants do nothing to address the substance of CODEPINK's question: what does a responsible exit strategy look like?

If you listen to what the CODEPINK delegates are actually saying, it's clear they're not naïve or confused; they're just saying something that doesn't fit on a bumper-sticker.

Here's Medea summing up CODEPINK's position after their visit to Kabul: "we [also] heard a lot of people [in Afghanistan] say they didn't want more troops to be sent in and they wanted the U.S. to have a responsible exit strategy that included the training of Afghan troops, included being part of promoting a real reconciliation process and included economic development; that the United States shouldn't be allowed to just walk away from the problem. So that's really our position."

"Bring the Troops Home" is a bumper sticker, not a policy. We need a policy.

And holding the US accountable for its actions in Afghanistan is a good place to start. ++

Yifat Susskind is Communications Director for MADRE.


bonus


7 Months, 10 Days in Captivity
David Rohde, NYT
October 17, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/world/asia/18hostage.html

 

Part 2 -- Inside the Islamic Emirate
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/world/asia/19hostage.html

"I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... I'm asking you to believe in yours."
~ Barack Obama

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.