Rather than dwell upon the grammar lesson I would delve into the substance. I find a deal of irony in the fact that the Afghani government seems in revolt and expresses its displeasure at a leader who seems to have stolen an election and has more than a hint of the corrupt about him.

Contrast that with our own situation in which our own leader has lied his way into office
( harsh? really?) with a series of campaign promises now long forgotten, while our Congress consists of a minority in a perpetual temper tantrum and a majority running in circles accomplishing next to nothing.

Are we really the newest third world nation?

Who is JCL and does he have an editor? 

“Also, let us not forget the fact that Karzai holds power through an election debacle—e.g., fraud—and that his opponent in the 2009 runoff election withdraw from the race because he did not think the contest could be fair under the existing corrupt system.”

The letters “e.g.” mean “for example”, not “that is” which is called for (that’s “i.e”, by the way). “Withdraw”?  Shouldn’t it’ve been the past-tense “withdrew”?

Not only is the editing sloppy, but the presumptions stated here as established fact, along with a rather large helping of the view from the imperial colonialist perspective, makes this “report” read more like an editorial.  From the imperial perspective, any puppet state that is not enthusiastic about its own exploitation, and any puppet quisling government that cannot crush dissent within its own ranks, risks the displeasure of the master.  The US, it appears, may have backed the wrong thug.