Obama Backed Violent Pro-Shari'a Politician in Kenya
This is a complex story, but I urge everyone who cares about the current massacre in Nairobi to follow the thread of this tale ....
Obama and his proclaimed ally Odinga
( Read more... )
Obama and his proclaimed ally Odinga
( Read more... )
Generally speaking, yes. Is there some special reason why I shouldn't trust her? You've mentioned that a different version of the Memorandum may exist -- did you have any factual quarrel with any other statements in her articles?
What's more, though I used her "Kenya's Killing Fields" series as the main skeleton for my post, I also directly-referenced and quoted articles in Haaretz and the Telegraph.
As to your claim that the MoU quoted by Geller from the Evangelical Alliance of Kenya is false, it may be false. The EAoK could be lying -- but then so also could Odinga and Abdi.
Odinga is a politician whose movement murdered hundreds and drove out hundreds of thousands of Kenyans in a tantrum over losing the Presidential election, then accepted the Prime Ministership as part of an obviously extortionate deal in return for his implicit promise to cease this killing. He is thus by his own implicit admission a murderer, arsonist and rapist -- why should we trust him? As for Abdi, he is a fundamentalist Muslim leader, and one of the tenets of the Muslim jihad is that it is acceptable to lie to the infidels.
What's more, Odinga's behavior as Prime Minister is consistent with his having made such a deal. He did meet most of the pleges, whether they were unconstitutional or not (has it occurred to you that winning the Prime Ministership by starting a nationwide wave of murderous and vicious tribal riots is also probably against the Kenyan Constitution, or at least ordinary criminal law?). And he did "mightily annoy the non-Muslim majority in Kenya," which is probably why he LOST the 2013 election!
And even if the Memorandum were a complete fabrication by the Kenyan evangelicals, what about all the other things Odinga has done? Including sparking bloody riots in anger over losing the 2007 election, committing violent extortion to become Prime Minister, engaging in an insane persecution of Kenyan homosexuals, and deliberately snubbing the winner of the 2013 election (thus helping to destablize Kenyan democracy through failure to graciously concede)? Do all these crimes somehow magically become "un-facts" if the Memorandum was fabricated?
If, say, I told you that a certain neighborhood was unssafe because of four bloody crimes committed there in broad daylight and to the accompaniment of community non-cooperation with the police, and you found that one of these crimes actually happened a few blocks over, would you conclude that the other three crimes couldn't have happened there and hence it was perfectly safe for you to live in that neighborhood? Seriously, do you apply the same reasoning to your day-to-day life?
Reply
You know, where a soldier was hacked up in broad daylight by Muslim extremists and there doesn't seem to be much of an impact?
With all the stacking up of atrocities committed daily by Islam, I don't really see how people are still able to pretend that the supposed 'Islamophobia' are 'lies' instead of being a rational fear as well as truth.
Reply
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/kenya.asp
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/aug/20/jerome-corsi/obama-did-not-take-sides-in-kenya/
Based on the above there seems to have been only one visit by Senator Obama to Kenya, it happened in 2006 and he did not take sides.
The Haaretz and the Telegraph article have nothing to say about either any connection between Obama and Odinga or the supposed secret MoU. And yes, the attrocities committed during the riots were horrendous and as far as I can tell they were committed by Odinga's tribe.
That said, to me the Geller MoU reads like a current age Elders of Zion scroll. I'd recommend to consider it fake until you find solid proof for it. Instead you seem to think the onus to be on me to prove it fake. Funny approach.
Reply
In this case, snopes's allegations come up against the photo on the OP, which clearly shows Obama and Odinga, and direct text from a number of his speeches. While my 5 minutes of research didn't produce documentation of financial contributions, the evidence is that Snopes is once again massaging the facts to fit their narrative. When speaking in a country that is preparing for an election, an election where there is an incumbent on the ballot, saying:
“My own city of Chicago, Ill., has been the home of some of the most corrupt local politics in American history over the years, from patronage machines to questionable elections. Here in Kenya, there is a crisis, a crisis that’s robbing an honest people of the opportunities they fought for.”
Is accusing the incumbent of corruption. It is advocating quite clearly and indisputably for his defeat. To then come out and say "I didn't take sides" is a barefaced lie. For anyone to ignore the actual text of a speech and accept him at his word is for them to discredit themselves. Snopes therefore loses yet another piece of it's already failed credibility.
Reply
From Obama Speeches: "University of Nairobi"
Gotta run, will be back later.
Reply
"It's more than just history and outside influences that explain why Kenya lags behind. Like many nations across this continent, where Kenya is failing is in its ability to create a government that is transparent and accountable. One that serves its people and is free from corruption."
"But while corruption is a problem we all share, here in Kenya it is a crisis - a crisis that's robbing an honest people of the opportunities they have fought for - the opportunity they deserve."
Even this, which gives a nod to the incumbent, dismissed their strides as " promising gestures"
"Among other things, this recognition resulted in the coalition that came to power in the December elections of 2002. This coalition succeeded by promising change, and their early gestures - the dismissal of the shaky judges, the renewed vigor of the investigation into the Goldenberg scandal, the calls for real disclosure of elected officials' personal wealth - were all promising.
But elections are not enough. In a true democracy, it is what happens between elections that is the true measure of how a government treats its people."
Preaching that there's a corruption crisis, all that talk of reform, all that talk of change... Essentially, there's no honest way to dispute that that was a campaign stop in opposition of Kibaki and support of Odinga.
Reply
I still understand the speech as aimed at corruption in general. It is very unfortunate for Kenya that the Kibaki administration - running on a anti-corruption ticket - was shaken by a massive corruption scandal in 2005, which resulted in the suspension of US and German financial aid to anti-graft agencies.The allegations went on to reinforce the increasingly widespread perception of Mr Kibaki and his inner circle as a nest of power-hungry corrupt leaders as bad as those under Mr Moi.
Aid suspended
The new corruption crisis was sparked by a speech at a dinner party by the British high commissioner in Kenya, Sir Edward Clay.
He bemoaned what he described as the "massive looting" of public funds by senior officials of the Kibaki administration.
The UK envoy told his stunned audience that he had handed the Kenyan authorities a dossier of 20 dubious contracts and allegedly crooked procurement ventures - only six months after complaining that corrupt Kenyan ministers were "eating like gluttons" and "vomiting on the shoes of foreign donors".
Oh, and you may want to read coverage by CBS from 2006. While I guess the bits most important to you will be that "Odinga's been at Obama's elbow here fairly often" and Obama was called a stooge for Odinga, you may not want to miss the bits on how Kenya's oldest newspaper had been raided and its copies burned, or how illegal "fees" taken from the CBS crew at the airport were suddenly returned after a complaint by Obama. No Sir, no corruption here.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment