Clinton: No Tolerance of Afghan Corruption

(CBS)  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on "Face The Nation" Saturday that U.S. money in Afghanistan will not go to supporting corrupt agencies in the Afghan government, and that distribution of funds will be based on a "certification of accountability and transparency," leaving some questionable ministries without funding from the U.S.

"We've looked at every civilian assistance program and contract and we've said, 'Look, we're not going to just aid and abet bad behavior," Clinton told CBS News senior Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer. "Part of the challenge here is to begin to make the more difficult, complicated assessments that were not made before."

Karzai's government has been plagued by corruption since his first election victory in 2004. In this year's election, Karzai's reputation with Western nations has been severely damaged after an inquiry found that nearly one third of the votes cast for him were bogus.

Even as he pledged in his second inauguration speech that he would name competent and candid ministers, doubts as to the validity of his government remain, especially as two of his cabinet ministers are under investigation for embezzlement. Even Karzai's brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, has been linked to Afghanistan's booming heroin trade.

Through the seemingly widespread corruption, the Obama Administration sees hope in facets of the Afghan government, Defense Secretary Robert Gates noted.

"The reality is the Karzai government has been painted with too broad a brush," he said. "The reality is we have several ministries - Interior, Defense, Agriculture, Education and some others - where we have very competent, honest ministers that are doing a darn good job. We also have governors in important provinces that are making a big difference, that are honest and competent."

Gates added, "What we are going to do is focus on the ministries that matter to our success and that contribute to the success of our strategy, both with respect to al Qaeda and stabilizing the security situation."

Schieffer also asked Secretary Clinton about NATO's pledge to commit 7,000 additional troops and whether she thinks more will be committed.

"I do. I do think there will be more coming," she said.

Secretary Gates added, "The fact is that with this pledge of 7,000, that will be 50,000 non-U.S. troops in Afghanistan. That is not a trivial matter."

Read the Complete "Face the Nation" Transcript (12.06.09)

Clinton said pledges from other nations of additional troops are a vote of confidence in the new strategy, in spite of the Afghan war's unpopularity, here at home or abroad.

"A lot of them have really fought and they sacrificed and they lost people, too," she said. "For the leaders of our NATO allies and our other partners in the international security force ISAF to say, 'We really believe this is the right thing to do. We do see it as affecting our national security. And we want to be in. You know, we started this fight together. We want to continue it and finish it together,' was a reflection of the work that we've done all year to rebuild these relationships."

[ur_u_nuts]

SoS Clinton calling Karzi: Hello pot this is kettle calling!

What hypocrites!!

[michaelm07]

Nevermind corruption in Afghanistan, how about the corruption here at home in the U.S., in Washington? We seem to tolerate that.

[ffoulkes-2009]

Wow...she still works here? Almost forgot about her.

[armyoftwelve]

What i sMs. Clinton suggesting?? Are we going to send a US attorney to afghanistan to prosecute corruption?

[stn_sage]

...accountability and transparency? Just when, has the U.S. govt EVER worried that our interaction with Afghanistan was based upon these two factors?! They haven't!!

If it were, then we NEVER would have gotten involved in it to begin with!

Whereas, out govt is based upon the Constitution and Bill of Rights, theirs' is based upon corruption and greed, and NOTHING...NOTHING, is going to change that!

Our politicians know this...and it's high time the public does, too!

[ramos1129]

Secretary Gates added, "The fact is that with this pledge of 7,000, that will be 50,000 non-U.S. troops in Afghanistan. That is not a trivial matter."
-----------------------------------------------

This is a travial matter. Soon, the US will have 98,000 troops in Afhgan whereas there will be 50,000 troops for the other 42 countries. This breaks down to about 1,190 troops for the each of the 42 countries which includes England, France, Greece, etc.

[brianbwb-2009]

"Clinton: No Tolerance of Afghan Corruption"

Brian: But much tolerance for even worse US corruption.

Bring Bush and his klan of war criminals to justice, then begin to talk about accountability and corruption.

"Defense Secretary Robert Gates noted..."The reality is the Karzai government has been painted with too broad a brush," he said."

Whenever politicians preface a statement with "the reality is..." know for a certainty that they are lying through the left side of their faces.

The Karzai government is a corrupt puppet regime, forced upon the Afghanistani people by Bush, and now maintained by Obama.

Even if the US stays there for McSame's "100 years", on the first day after we leave, ex-UNOCAL coffee boy Karzai is dead meat, and deservedly so.

[egresor]

Whenever politicians preface a statement with "the reality is..." know for a certainty that they are lying through the left side of their faces.

The Karzai government is a corrupt puppet regime, forced upon the Afghanistani people by Bush, and now maintained by Obama.

Even if the US stays there for McSame's "100 years", on the first day after we leave, ex-UNOCAL coffee boy Karzai is dead meat, and deservedly so.

brianbwb-2009

===========

PR

pure and simple.

to re-sell a war the american people want out of.

what did they do in vietnam?

i remember it...cause i was there and they did the same thing then as they're doing now. prop up the locan government and leave strategy.

well.....it didn't work in vietnam for the same reason it wont work in afghanistan and iraq.

the reason?

because when we go into a country who do we pick to be in charge?
(dont kid yourself about us picking him too! we picked karzai as our puppet)

we pick those who are corrupt and we can buy and influence.

we did it in vietnam and we did it in iraq and afghanistan.

then we expect them to do what's right?

LOL

what a joke!

we knew his brother was a drug dealer. didn't we?

of course we did, but political expediency prevails and we get into bed with those who send heroin to destroy our citizen's lives, but is that surprising?

oh, but i forget....even our own CIA deals drugs, but that was swept under the rug....wasn't it!?

"he who refuses to learn from the mistakes of the past is doomed to repeat them"

we're just repeating the same old mistakes over and over again.

america learns nothing!

we're gonna spend billions more and kill who know's how many more and injury how more americans and afghani's? for what?

to slink out of afghanistan with our tails between our legs, but don't worry folks....we'll have hillary clinton and gates to PR it all for us.

rest in peace righteous america.

[ramos1129]

"A lot of them have really fought and they sacrificed and they lost people, too," she said. "For the leaders of our NATO allies and our other partners in the international security force ISAF to say, 'We really believe this is the right thing to do. We do see it as affecting our national security. And we want to be in. You know, we started this fight together. We want to continue it and finish it together,' was a reflection of the work that we've done all year to rebuild these relationships."

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

Let's examine the record: We have 68,000 troops whereas the other 42 counties have 45,000 troops (a little over 1,000 troops each). In this new wave, we are contributing 30,000 troops whereas the other 42countries are contributing about 7000 troops (or about 167 troops each). We will have about 98,000 troops whereas the other 42 countries will have 52,000 troops (or about 1238 troops each). Is Clinton serious? Or joking? Since she is calling this parity, then it is good she was not elected President. How can she defend this?

[pjk12354]

The blind leading the blind.........The U.S. Government, one of the corrupt messes on the planet......telling somebody else to clean up their corruption......

[pensacola8-2009]

The big effort that supports the REAL future of Afghanistan's survival as a nation is directly on the back of Secretary Clinton, not Gates.

Supporting Secretary Clinton's initiatives to strengthen the socio-economic conditions of Afghanistan will pay far more dividends than supporting Gates initiative to do anything.

It will take intense organizing for citizens in Afghanistan to make their country something better for them, and they CAN do it with Clinton's support. They can not do anything with Gate's running around the network tv circuit telling listeners about his plans to alternately strengthen and then later condemn the very citizens his troops are there to protect. Gates has clearly undermined much of the Afghan political reform and discourages many Afghan citizens with his rhetoric and announcements. For the most part, Gate's TV press releases help alQuieda by discouraging Afghan citizens, while Clinton's TV press releases do more to help the average Afghan citizen.

I sure hope President Obama can put more emphasis on the improvement needed on the political side of the Afghanistan challenge, and less on the military side. Stated another way, without improvement on the political side, all the military effort is a mute point and perceived as wasteful.

Support Secretary Clinton in telling Afghanistan citizens what a healthy Democracy can do for them.

[ramos1129]

Support Secretary Clinton in telling Afghanistan citizens what a healthy Democracy can do for them.
------------------------------------------------

This is one of our major problems - telling other countries what kind of government they should have. The plain truth is that our system of government is great for the USA but not necessarily so for other countries. They have to decide what system of government you want - a dictatorship? Or a democracy? Or a combination of both? They decide and no one else.