They vote; we decide

The White House goons would like to have us believe the first "democratic" election in Afghanistan proves the people rule; except, here, "the people" means "druglords and warlords," and "rule" means that drug and warlord-ish sort of control. \nWhile Bush leapt from stump to stump on the campaign trail Saturday, he credited his administration with the "success" of Afghanistan as a reborn, democratic nation. \n"A marvelous thing is happening in Afghanistan," said President Bush. "Freedom is powerful. Think about a society in which young girls couldn't go to school, and their mothers were whipped in the public square, and today, they're holding a presidential election." \nAs Bush would have us imagine free Afghan women, frolicking through the utopian fields of their country, the reality is that those women still can't read, and those fields harvest opium poppies. \nAbove all, Bush would never admit that the very legitimacy of the Afghan election is under scrutiny. \nAccording to several Associated Press reports, 15 of the 18 running candidates boycotted the election because of voting fraud cases that would skew the outcome of the polls. They demanded an investigation. The remaining three people include the U.S.-appointed interim President Hamid Karzai and two candidates who threw their support to him.\nEach voter should have only received one registration card, but accounts show that many people had obtained more than one and were able to cast several votes. \nA semi-permanent ink was intended to prevent multiple-voting occurrences by marking the fingers of the individuals who had already voted. But just like underaged drinkers at a nightclub, the voters rushed to the bathroom sinks, scrubbing the stamps off of their hands. \nThe leading candidate, Bush's buddy Karzai, reacted in the most democratic way fit. \n"It's too late ... for a boycott," he told a news conference. "Millions have voted in the rain, the snow and the dust storm, and we should respect their decision. Just because 15 (of the candidates) have said 'No,' we can't deny the votes of millions." \nActually, that's the whole point of a democratic election. What good are those millions of votes if they are illegal? If there is no competition -- if Karzai has no opponents to run against -- the U.S. has just appointed the president of Afghanistan. In fact, that sounds less like a democratic regime change, and more like a coup.\nOf course Bush would find no fault in the election practices of Afghanistan. He taught his little protégé Karzai that regardless of ballot inconsistencies, recounts and election commission investigations are for the meek and fuzzy mathematicians.\nWhy is the U.S. government pulling the burqa over our eyes about the results of Afghanistan's election?\nThough opposition to the election has phased out since Saturday, the reaction of the White House is unwarranted and misleading. The timing of the Afghan election was a strong campaign move from the Bush strategists, but their superficial interpretation of the election as an immediate transformation to democracy is negligible and manipulative. By blowing an Afghanistan-scaled dust storm in our eyes, maybe we won't feel so responsible for invading their country. It's all working out as we planned, right? \nThe U.S. can only celebrate Afghanistan as a success story once the state is stable and free of terrorists. \nStatus of its economic culture: Opium production has increased 60 percent from 2003, according to CIA figures. Status of Osama bin Laden: still at large. \nAnd Afghanistan can only celebrate its own freedom when public participation is maximized and basic human rights are inherent. Even if some women are voting, they must acknowledge that they still have a long way to go on gender equality. \nTake your party hats off, George, Condi and Colin. This flawed election is far from an exit strategy.