Barack Obama will have to do some awfully embarrassing things as president. For example, the whole pardoning of the turkey thing next month, on the eve of Thanksgiving, comes to mind. And then there's the whole taking of Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner seriously thing -- an admitted impossible but still a required activity.
On the scale of exceptionally embarrassing White House duties, however, few moments will rival the point on Tuesday, October 20, when the president found himself hailing the commitment of accused election-fraudster Hamid Karzai to "ensuring a credible process for the Afghan people which results in a government that reflects their will."
Karzai, the US-imposed viceroy -- er, the president of Afghanistan -- whose supporters engaged in massive fraud in order to try and "win" the country's recent election, has agreed to participate in a November 7 runoff election with Abdullah Abdullah -- the most resilient survivor of the Karzai team's chicanery.
Obama, who has to be heavily invested in the fantasy that Karzai is a legitimate leader -- and that the United States-led occupation of Afghanistan will somehow develop popular support there (or in the United States) -- knows that the Afghan president is no democrat.
But the American president must pretend that Afghanistan is a functional republic that meets internationally-accepted standards with regard to voting, counting and reporting results. That's not the case. Independent agencies and analysts have confirmed that fraud was so widespread that it was unreasonable for Karzai -- or anyone else -- to claim he had won.
Karzai's association with corruption and with this election fraud has made it much more difficult for US officials to proceed with plans to ramp up the occupation by sending in more troops and transforming a classic military presence into a more permanent project. So Karzai has finally had to agree to at least go through the motions of participating in a real election. And when he did, Obama hailed the man -- who stands accused of orchestrating a massive effort to thwart democracy -- as someone whose "constructive actions established an important precedent for Afghanistan's new democracy."
Obama's precise statement went like this: "While this election could have remained unresolved to the detriment of the country, President Karzai's constructive actions established an important precedent for Afghanistan's new democracy. The Afghan constitution and laws are strengthened by President Karzai's decision, which is in the best interests of the Afghan people."
The "yuck factor" was high. But it got higher when Obama praised Karzai for helping to foster "such a vibrant campaign." It is, of course, true that Barack Obama is not the first American president to have to pretend that some local bad guy who got caught red handed is really some kind of statesman. Still, having to speak well of Karzai is a lot -- arguably too much -- to ask.
And if Obama has any sense of the region -- or of the trouble his Afghanistan initiative is in -- he has to be hoping that Karzai and his henchmen will refrain from obvious lawbreaking in the second round.
As the US president said, "It is now vital that all elements of Afghan society continue to come together to advance democracy, peace and justice. We look forward to a second round of voting and the completion of the process to choose the president of Afghanistan. In that effort, the United States and the international community are committed to partnering with the Afghan people."
Great rhetoric, indeed. Unfortunately, there is scant evidence to suggest that Hamid Karzai can even now be trusted to "advance democracy."
John Nichols is Washington correspondent for The Nation magazine.
Copyright © 2009 The Nation
(Distributed by Agence Global)
A Death In Tehran, Or Unbounded Mythmaking?