Skip to main content

Once more: why you cannot trust the government, and especially its propaganda wings

Here's how President Obama characterized the Afghan elections today, as reported by that legend of objectivity Voice of America:

U.S. President Barack Obama says Afghanistan's elections appear to have been successful, despite attempts by the Taliban to disrupt them with violence.


Here, to help us define success as the Obama Administration apparently sees it, is Anti-war.com:

Polls in Afghanistan closed today at 5 pm local time (8:30 am EST), following a one hour extension announced by authorities hoping to get the reportedly anemic turnout to a more respectable number. It does not appear to have been very effective, however, as the turnout has been quite a bit lower than officials had hoped.

Turnout was particularly low in the Pashtun-heavy south, a sign of Taliban strength in the region but also potentially a negative sign for President Karzai’s chances of winning reelection in the first round, as he was seen to need a significant Pashtun turnout to claim such a victory without a runoff.

Reports of voter fraud have also emerged, with one Afghan reporter saying that extra voting cards were available for as little as $8 a piece. The “indelible” ink which is used to prevent multiple votes is also easily washed off, according to reports.

The long-expected violence happened as well, with President Karzai reporting 73 attacks on polling places. Other reports have voters being hanged by Taliban and roadblocks keeping them from reaching the polls. Taliban also managed to shoot down a Chinook transport helicopter belonging to British forces in Helmand. The exact toll of the violence was difficult to ascertain, however, due to the government’s harsh election-day censorship efforts, but conservative estimates put the dead at 26.

The actual results of the votes are likely not going to be available for some time, given the remote locations of some of the polling stations. The US conceded that the vote did not go according to plans, but insisted it would not alter its policy of escalation.


In other words, President Obama defines success in Afghanistan as low voter turn-out, rampant vote fraud, dozens of violent attacks, a NATO helicopter shot down, more than two dozen Afghans killed trying to vote, and a US friendly government that imposed election-day censorship.

Kind of makes you wonder what failure would look like, doesn't it?

Maybe these two headlines from Iraq, where we have already declared victory, will help:

Thursday: 40 Iraqis Killed, 223 Wounded
Wednesday: 1 US Soldier, 107 Iraqis Killed; 1,223 Iraqis Wounded

By the way, Anti-war.com, the most reliable aggregator and original source for war coverage across the planet, is conducting its quarterly fund drive.

Even in a recession it is worth considering.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...