Dr Abdullah will NOT run in the Afghan run-off elections on November 7

Source: Al-Jazeera English and CNN-International

Dr Abdullah announces he will not participate in the November 7 elections in Afghanistan



Read more: http://english.aljazeera.net/

---

Right now it's just on the ticker portion of the al-jazeera website

In his speech he called the gov't illegitimate and charged the elections would not be fair as Karzai approves all election officials

This is not a smart move on his part, IMHO...

to give the appearance of respectability to a rigged election.

Doesn't that just suck?

Like the removal of hundreds of election officials in areas where we know corruption took place or election monitors having a better idea of what to look for now that we know what types of election fraud are most likely to be attempted?

our government. It was reported almost daily in the run up to the election. They knew who and how and when. What you're describing is most likely window dressing. :shrug:

/oops

about massive amounts of prior knowledge?

Also, what you describe as mere "window dressing" were the recommendations of the U.N. and consisted of a fairly sizable reshuffling of election officials in the country, with a large number of them being kicked to the curb.

and on Link's "Mosaic" Middle East news show. Check Amy's archives.

And you remember that the second in command at the UN was FIRED for coming out with the information that the UN was turning a blind eye to massive cheating. Here's a story from 10/07 and I'm sure you can find more if you want to:

http://www.pri.org/world/middle-east/un-official-speaks-out-afghanistan1657.html

however, this article doesn't address the issue of prior knowledge (knowing who, where, or when fraud would be committed and turning a blind eye I to it) which is the part of your claim I'm having trouble swallowing. Instead, this article focuses on the U.N.'s initally muted reaction after the elections, which I personally think was a wise move on their part. I'll dig around though and see what I can come up with.

Fraud, violence threaten planned Afghan elections

KABUL, Afghanistan — Evidence of fraud and poor security conditions are raising concerns that Afghanistan's presidential elections next fall could be compromised.

With Afghans scheduled to go to the polls in less than a year, the country's Independent Elections Commission (IEC) is in the midst of a massive voter registration drive that will continue until early February. Election officials are watching registration numbers closely because low registration could delay or derail the presidential polls.

The IEC is reporting high turnout across the country since the drive began in October, despite insurgent threats to kill anyone who registers. Many parts of southern and eastern Afghanistan are under insurgent control.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/58384.html

This is definitely more to the issue.

To me, it seems fraud like this is something that was nearly impossible for the U.S. to prevent. We can say "Hey, you need to have legitimate institutions" but unless we're the ones running them (which nearly everyone on this board opposes) we can't ensure that that will actually occur. Frankly, I think the Obama Administration would have preferred that no fraud took place whatsoever because it would have shored up the legitimacy of democracy in Afghanistan, therefore I still find it hard to believe that we knew fraud was occuring and happily turned a blind eye because we wanted Karzai to win. It seems more accurate to say that we crossed our fingers and hoped for the best.

and not the people who were content to let it slide, that isn't really hoping for the best. That's collusion.

And if it was clear to me from watching these reports all year that this election would be stolen, I have to assume that our government with all the resources at its disposal knew the election would be stolen, too.

or was he fired because it had generally been agreed upon to wait until the investigators findings were in and he bucked that? There were logical reasons to wait until the facts were in to raise a stink, mainly because not waiting put a lot of major players (the U.S., Britain, Canada, etc.) in an extremely tough spot with Karzai at a very delicate time in the Af-Pak war.

On the other hand, with stolen elections, "wait" usually leads to "never mind" and it sounds as though this individual knew that.

Have you pondered the idea that he is doing this to save his life??? I have, and I don't blame him. He should get out of the frigging country with all his family and seek safety someplace...
:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :hide: :hide: :hide:

Thanks for the good thought.

Since even Karzai has admitted that the changes he requested need to be made, but said he could only do them after the election, it sounds like Abdullah is right. Why does this not surprise me?

wasn't...

So, I commend him for making the point about election integrity.

Just curious.

run the poppy business over there. Nothing like a few million to make you forget your country's troubles!!!!



:puke:

Apparently he's decided that he can't win, so he's decided to take a different tact - at least that's how his detractors will see it. I'm disappointed.

It is well past time to just get the fuck out of there.

not likely we will get out of there any time in the near future..in fact i will be we will still be there when i pass on!!!!


Four Major bailed out US banks finance cluster bombs with taxpayers money


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

***A Big Thank you to DU member Ichingcarpenter for bringing this to my attention!


The top five loan providers were Bank of America , Citigroup , JP Morgan , Barclays and Goldman Sach from your link..and thank you for that link !!

Top banks fund cluster bombs as ban nears -
LONDON, Oct 29 (Reuters) - Leading banks have funded cluster bomb-makers to the tune of $5 billion in the past two years despite an international accord to ban the weapons, a study said on Thursday.

The top five loan providers were Bank of America , Citigroup , JP Morgan , Barclays and Goldman Sachs , the study said on Thursday.
The researchers used publicly available information, such as that supplied by stock exchanges and financial databases, to produce their study.

Bank of America and JP Morgan declined to comment while Citigroup and Goldman Sachs also had no immediate comment.

Nations agreed to outlaw cluster bombs in May 2008. The resulting convention will come into force when 30 countries have ratified it -- 23 have already done so. Neither the United States nor Britain, where the top five loan providers are based, have yet ratified the treaty.
The Convention on Cluster Munitions includes a ban on assisting anyone to make the bombs.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

now why does this not surprise me?? and what group here has many in this current administration??

oh yeah Goldman Sach's..

and does anyone really believe Obama has any intention of stopping the perpetual wars??????

There is no reason for progressives/anti-imperialists to support him.