October 28, 2009 8:19 AM

Karzai to Face November Afghan Runoff Vote

(CBS/AP)  Updated at 6:48 p.m. EDT

Afghanistan's election commission Tuesday ordered a Nov. 7 runoff in the disputed presidential poll after a fraud investigation dropped incumbent Hamid Karzai's votes below 50 percent of the total. Karzai accepted the finding and agreed to a second-round vote.

The announcement came two months to the day after the first-round vote and follows weeks of political uncertainty at a time when Taliban strength is growing.

Karzai said final results showing the need for a runoff were "legitimate, legal and according to the constitution of Afghanistan."

The Afghan leader spoke at a press conference alongside U.S. Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the head of the U.N. in Afghanistan, Kai Eide - a sign of the intense international pressure which preceded the announcement.

Karzai and Kerry were in talks as late as Tuesday afternoon, suggesting that up until the last moment there was a chance he would return to insisting on a first-round victory.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Afghanistan

President Barack Obama welcomed Karzai's willingness to run in a new election against his main rival Abdullah Abdullah, saying his decision "established an important precedent for Afghanistan's new democracy."

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown also commended Karzai, as did U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Ban, however, also stressed that a runoff will be a "huge challenge" and promised more help from the world body.

Shortly before the press conference, the chairman of the Independent Election Commission, Azizullah Lodin, said the commission, which organized the Aug. 20 vote, did not want to "leave the people of Afghanistan in uncertainty" any longer. He said Karzai no longer had more than 50 percent of the vote needed for a first-round victory and ordered a Nov. 7 runoff.

Afghan voters, who risked their lives to reach polling stations in August are now being asked to do it again, reports CBS News correspondent Mandy Clark. The runoff is the result of a .

"The call for a runoff election helps to legitimize the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the United Nations mission," said CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk from the U.N., "and whether there is a coalition government formed or new elections are held, there will be more transparency in the election process."

Kerry said the agreement on a second round had transformed the crisis into a "moment of great opportunity," and praised Karzai for "genuine leadership in the decision he has made today."

He complimented Karzai for his "openness to finding ways of resolving differences."

"The international community is 100 percent committed to helping to carry out this election," Kerry said.

Mr. Obama called Karzai to personally applaud his cooperation with the runoff decision.

Looming over the runoff announcement is the White House's still undecided position on U.S. troop levels. On a trip to Asia, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said Tuesday that the Obama administration should not waiting for an election result before announcing a war strategy.

CBS News has learned the White House is hoping to make a decision on sending in additional troops before Mr. Obama leaves for China Nov. 11 but after the Nov. 7 runoff is - hopefully - complete.

American soldiers will be called upon again to protect voters and polling stations against Taliban attacks. And that may mean some U.S. combat missions will have to be put on hold, Clark reports.

The new election won't make the Obama administration's decision on troops "significantly easier," Falk said, "but it goes a long way to restore credibility to the oversight and decrease the view of corruption in the current government."

The possibility of a runoff emerged Monday after a U.N.-backed panel from the Aug. 20 ballot, pushing his totals below 50 percent and setting the stage for a runoff against Abdullah, a former foreign minister.

The commission determined that Karzai won 49.7 percent of the vote - higher than independent calculations but still low enough to force a runoff, according to a statement.

In a sign that political fissures are not completely smoothed over, the statement said the commission still had "some reservations" about the fraud rulings but decided to announce the runoff because of "time constraints, the imminent arrival of winter and existence of the problems in the country."

One alternative to a runoff that diplomats say was being discussed was a power-sharing deal, though the form that could take is unclear. And it could take weeks or months to hammer out an agreement between the two rivals. Karzai ruled out a coalition government, telling reporters, "there is no space for a coalition government in the law."

Yet the agreement that a runoff is required could be just the first step in negotiations to iron out these differences between the Karzai and Abdullah camps. Kerry said he had not discussed power-sharing with Karzai, but other diplomats have said that it has been part of discussion.

There are serious worries that a runoff - which Karzai is widely expected to win - may not produce any better result.

Another election risks the same fraud that derailed the Aug. 20 vote, along with inciting violence and increasing ethnic divisions. If there are any delays, the vote could also could be hampered by winter snows that block off much of the north of the country starting mid-November.

"I hope that the international community and the Afghan government and all others concerned will take every possible measure to provide security to the people so that when they vote, that vote is not called a fraud," Karzai said.

U.S. soldiers will be called upon again to protect polling stations against Taliban attack, reports CBS News correspondent Mandy Clarke. And that may mean some U.S. combat missions will have to be put on hold.

The August poll was characterized by Taliban attacks on polling stations and government buildings that killed dozens of people. In some areas, militants cut off the ink-marked fingers of people who had voted.

Taliban threats dampened turnout in the first round and many say even fewer people would come out in a runoff.

Yet in Kandahar city - a Karzai stronghold that was plagued by both violence and ballot-box stuffing on election day - a group of about 90 tribal elders who back the president said they would tell their people to come out to vote.

"We are very happy he didn't agree to a coalition government and all of our tribes have decided today that we will take part in a runoff election," said Fazel Uddin Agha, a middle-aged elder who spoke for the group.

"This election we will give even more votes to Karzai," Agha said.

© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 51 Comments
by finkfust October 21, 2009 3:20 AM EDT
jefleshman - You like to post links and ask for comments about them, so how about your comments this one:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-three-fallacies-that-have-driven-the-war-in-afghanistan-1806191.html
Reply to this comment
by jefleshman October 21, 2009 5:29 AM EDT
Fink,

Thank you for sharing the link to the article. I would love to address this article and persons point of view since they did it writing in a mature "no name calling" fashion (unlike you).

QUOTE: "It is not possible to achieve absolute safety. We can only try to figure out what would bring the least risk, and pursue it."

ANSWER: Absolutely without a doubt, 100% agree with the quote above.

QUOTE: "The 9/11 atrocities were planned in Hamburg and Florida by 19 Saudis"

ANSWER: Are you kidding me? So it was a Saudi born in America (which is not true), financed by the homegrown terrorists themselves and all masterminded and planned in Florida(not true)? Furthermore I am not dumb enough to even start to believe that point of discussion. But see next paragraph.

Even the most naive person knows some of the truth. Why did they come to America in the first place to learn how to fly plans? Oh, the writer forgot to mention that they knew the plan prior to coming to America. Who were they talking to while in America? The writer claims this to be planned and orchestrated from American soil...funny, very funny. So strangers that live miles away from one another, all end up meeting one another and decided to all do a synchronized terrorist attack on the same day with the same method? Are you kidding me? Get real. Who financed their operations? Passports? Visas? I could go on and on but you get my point.

QUOTE: "There are almost no al-Qa'ida fighters in Afghanistan".

ANSWER: Agreed, to a point. "In" is the key word in the quote.

QUOTE: "There are a dozen other failed states they can scuttle off to the next day and pitch some more tents. The US can't occupy every failed state in the world for decades - so why desperately try to plug one hole in a bath full of leaks, when the water will only seep out anyway"?

ANSWER: So, what the writer is saying is, the WORLD needs to stop relying on the US and UK to solve all the problems and needs to step it up! I could not agree with the writer more. I also would like to point out the implied "why try" implied meaning. My answer to that is, by ignoring the problem it will not magically go away on its own!

QUOTE: "The American people will be far safer if the world sees them building schools for Muslim kids instead of dropping bombs on them".

ANSWER: What have I been saying all along from the beginning of me posting on these boards. The media doesn't tell you what is really going on!

Please take the time to read the ISAF "reconstruction and development" section on the following link and tell me that we are not doing this!

SOURCE below:

http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_2009_03/20090331_090331_afghanistan_report_2009.pdf
by jefleshman October 20, 2009 3:13 PM EDT
Many people give many different ways to mankind. Take for instance this election in Afghanistan. How brave are the Afghans? Very brave in my point of view, knowing the security threat is real as the terrorist would love to disrupt the democratic process and kill them or disfigure them just for exercising the RIGHT to vote.

The workers who volunteer of their own free will to see a better and brighter Afghanistan also put themselves at risk. The security forces protecting the voting sites also face this danger head on. This is their country and they (and us NATO/ISAF) are making a difference every day. As is the ISAF/NATO forces along side of the Afghanistan Security Forces who are out there in front and beyond the front lines trying to make the village, the district, the province and the whole nation safer for all.

This is all in the name of Freedom, which some of us are taking for granted. Not long ago in my country (USA), many fought to have the God giving RIGHTS not taking away from them. I am sure the American women, American Indian and the American citizens of many races and ethnic backgrounds can relate. Even today, there are struggles in America, but we have had over two hundred years to work on democracy.

The Afghan form of democracy is just beginning. They will have their struggles too. But all of us working together help them along their path will make it easier; hopefully so they do not make the same mistakes we did. Do not disregard our efforts here. If you do not have anything nice to say, then silence is the best policy.

Just my thoughts, thank you for reading them.
Reply to this comment
by finkfust October 20, 2009 4:20 PM EDT
by jefleshman October 20, 2009 3:13 PM EDT
"Not long ago in my country (USA), many fought to have the God giving RIGHTS not taking away from them."
--------------------------------------
What rights did your god give you, when did it give them to you, who else did it give them to, and which god was it?

P.S. Did your god not give you the ability to write English too?
by finkfust October 20, 2009 4:49 PM EDT
by jefleshman October 20, 2009 3:13 PM EDT
"Do not disregard our efforts here. If you do not have anything nice to say, then silence is the best policy."
---------------------------
Yes, I have absolutely no doubt that you don't want to hear any criticism.

"You did a wonderful job in Iraq, Afghanistan is going brilliantly and Iran is next. You don't need to worry about your job for the next 20 years at least."...... is that what you want to hear?
by jefleshman October 20, 2009 2:33 PM EDT
by finkfust October 20, 2009 1:43 PM EDT
by jefleshman October 20, 2009 11:36 AM EDT
Fink you are more than welcome to come along during a VETCAP, Ooooops I forgot you don't contribute you just criticize others efforts. My flight has been pushed so I have more time.
----------------------
WHAT THE F*** GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO ACCUSE ME OF NOT CONTRIBUTING????? At least my medical work over the last 40 years and dozens of countries doesn't include killing innocent women and children and then pretending it's for some great moral purpose! Stick to killing whoever you're ordered to kill and give us a break from your disgusting hypocrisy and self-righteous cr@p.

I'm close to wishing that your flight goes down, but there may be people on board who, unlike you, are actually an asset to the world.

-----------------------------------------
by jefleshman October 20, 2009 2:01 PM EDT
Fink,

So mine and others work doesn't count; just yours? (that fink, is as you said the perfect example of "disgusting hypocrisy")

BTW I have not killed any innocents. I thought we have been over this already.

(I applaud you for your work; please do not disregard mine and others, for it is just as needed and just as important)
------------------------------

by finkfust October 20, 2009 2:15 PM EDT
I didn't see an apology................

-------------------------------------------

My appology follows:

Fink, I am sorry you are a hypocrite, but only you can change that by your actions and words.
Reply to this comment
by jefleshman October 20, 2009 1:40 PM EDT
I said it before from the beginning on this post:

America's 1864 election was held without women, slaves and Indians being allowed to participate, and it spawned claims of fraud. Lincoln defeated the Democratic nominee, Gen. George McClellan, with overwhelming support among Union soldiers.

-------------------------------------------

My thoughts, Bottom line, The above cut and paste represents 88 years after our (USA) nation was formed out of war. Give Democracy a chance and give it time. This is only their second Presidential elections.

See what Pres. Karzai's Political Advisor (TAJ AYUBI) had to say: http://www.embassyofafghanistan.org/InAfghanistanTakingaRiskforDemocracy.html

In any case, it is exciting to see democracy in its infancy!
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-16 October 20, 2009 11:57 AM EDT
by New_York_Joe_10 October 20, 2009 11:49 AM EDT
by hungry1968-16 October 20, 2009 11:43 AM EDT

Since business is foreign to you.....You don't understand what the Liberal talking point "No Bid Contracts" actually means....there are very good reasons why the government issues no-bid contracts, because the firm is the only one capable of meeting the requirements of the government, that was Halliburton

Just forget it, there is absolutely no use in having a real discussion with you.....you have your mind made up, no massive amount of information, evidence or anything will change your mind....so forget it....seriously, you are a lost cause and your mind has closed completely







This is such old news, even YOU can't deny it. Companies were submitting bids to the government to supply oil well fire extinguishing services, laundry, supplies, logistics, etc, etc BEFORE the war even started, and they were told "no thanks", because someone already had the contracts.

This anti-American, ultra-expensive process started WAY BACK in Bush Sr's administration, when Cheney was his defense secretary, and the kickbacks have been rolling ever since:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/25/60minutes/main551091.shtml


But as long as a CONSERVATIVE politically connected company is reaping the rewards, then I guess you're okay with it, right Joe?
Reply to this comment
by jefleshman October 20, 2009 11:52 AM EDT
By the way everyone,

I know we all were side tracked a bit with this and that. I would like to let you know that despite the medias attempt to make this a "circus" or whatever name you want to call it.

The fact of the matter is from my level is this:

1. The elections are Afghan Planned and Afghan executed (they do everything; it is amazing to witness them go through the same heartaches as us)
2. The polling sites are chosen by the elected local government and secured by the Afghan National Security forces
3. The Afghans vote (Not anyone else! They have to be registered prior to elections as any other government elections)
4. From what I have read, the corruption was that of "ballet box stuffing", so it will be interesting how they IEC try to mitigate this on the runoff
5. The Afghan Women were also very much involved in the previous election as there was also Woman candidates as well. The women of Afghanistan were well represented in all election seats as well as participated as volunteers at polling stations and campaigning for their candidate.

I was very proud to see them plan, execute and participate in the elections process.
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-16 October 20, 2009 11:43 AM EDT
by New_York_Joe_10 October 20, 2009 11:07 AM EDT

Cheney Halliburton ?? are you ill ? Cheney disconnected himself from Halliburton ownership/stock before he became VP....that was 9 years ago....but hey, keep milking the "Halliburton/Cheney" thing if it gives you confidence in light of your failed leaders.







Right.

It was pure coincidence that they happened to get HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars in "no bid contracts", when there were hundreds of other firms that wanted to submit bids to the federal government to do the same jobs, correct?

Never mind that it would have saved BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars. It was all just a fluke, luck of the draw, right Joe?
Reply to this comment
by us_1776 October 20, 2009 7:21 PM EDT
Cheney didn't need any stock. The money went straight to Swiss bank accounts.
by hungry1968-16 October 20, 2009 11:39 AM EDT
by New_York_Joe_10 October 20, 2009 11:28 AM EDT
That's why they target the ONLY conservative news outlet.....FOX

You don't see them/you targeting anyone else, you know why ? because all the other outlets you stated are all liberal biased....You are the joke if you don't know this







Washington Post?!?!

USA Today?!?!

Politico?!?!

RCP?!?!

You are brainwashed. It's AMAZING that you think that Fox is the ONLY news organization in the country. Unbelievable.

Especially with their long and storied history of being "WRONG" 80% of the time.
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-16 October 20, 2009 11:31 AM EDT
by New_York_Joe_10 October 20, 2009 11:19 AM EDT

If Annexing Afghanistan by the Soviets is a "good thing" in your mind...we were training them and supplying Stingers for a reason, to defeat the Soviets and prevent them from gaining the whole country....but you wouldn't understand, so nevermind.....carry on with your anti-conservative hate, that's all you got







The absolute best possible outcome for Afghanistan would have been if the Soviets annexed them, and crushed and eliminated the Taliban -- INCLUDING bin Laden.

And Bin Laden said that one of the reasons for turning on America, is that after the Soviets left in defeat, America turned it's back on the war torn country after it helped to sustain the war for YEARS.

No doubt - Reagan couldn't have F***ED that up worse, if he tried. Everything he did regarding foreign policy - especially Afghanistan - was a disaster.

And you put him on a pedestal?!? Are you going to build one for Bush Jr too?
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-16 October 20, 2009 11:58 AM EDT
It's okay Joe.

I really wasn't expecting a logical answer, once the facts were shown to you.
by hungry1968-16 October 20, 2009 11:24 AM EDT
by New_York_Joe_10 October 20, 2009 11:05 AM EDT
Wall street Journal was dismissed by you, and why do you list all the Liberal biased media outlets as your "acceptable" sources....precisely what I am saying....you never accept anything that's not Liberal and reject anything that has an opposing viewpoint.

Now in your twisted mind.....Time, NBS and CBS are neutral non-biased sources.....BWAAaaaaahhhhHHH ha ha ha!!!!







The Wall Street Journal WAS NOT rejected by me. An OPINION PIECE by Charles Krauthammer in the OP-ED section of the Wall Street Journal, was rejected by me as partisan hackery - and that STILL stands.

Isn't it funny how you reject EVERY SINGLE NEWS ORGANIZATION in the country as being liberally biased, in favor of ideologically and partisan driven OPINION?

Keep laughing Joe. The joke is on you.
Reply to this comment
See all 51 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook