The MoU she bases her claims on was made public by Wikileaks. What she failed to mention is the accompanying analysis: Purported Memorandum of Understanding between Kenyan Presidential contender Raila Odinga and Kenyans Muslim leadership, NAMLEF. A likely fraud, denied by its purported authors. Wikileaks constitutional analysis: Most of the pledges couldn't be met by any presidential candidate as they are inherently unconstitutional and would mightily annoy the non-Muslim majority in Kenya. A close reading of the purported "MOU" reveals that its pledges could not realistically have been expected to be met by the MOU's other purported party "The Leadership" of Muslims. ..... Wikileaks later got hold of what they think is the actual MoU
( ... )
I don’t know Geller from Adam’s off ox, but I do note that significant elements of the story are corroborated by Jihadwatch and Haaretz (see links in Our Host’s original post). Mr. Odinga certainly seems to have behaved as if one or another Islamist group had him in its back pocket.
As for Mr. Obama, his entire history in the conduct of foreign affairs could be roughly summarized as ‘always backing the worst horse in the stable’.
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
( ... )
I've generally found that Geller's articles have been well researched; though a lot of people are put off by her strong anti-Islamic takeover message. Europeans in particular have not been happy about her delivering some very ugly truths, and have preferred to dismiss her speaking truths about Islam as hate speech. This form of burying head into the sand and pretending that the lies they choose to believe are true has lead to Geller and Robert Spencer to be banned from Britain.
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.
It just seems like what Obama would do. He has no qualms about killing Africans himself, or teaming up with our enemies to kill them; so this is totally believable.
The libs will excuse it or pretend it really isn't as extreme as, say... the Republicans.
One might point out that America has allied with nasty dictators before, to America's benefit. The reasons why this situation is different are:
(1) Odinga originally had no actual authority in Kenya. Obama went out of his way to support Odinga in 2007, when Odinga was simply an especially nasty factional leader. He has never actually achieved supreme power in Kenya, and is now farther away from it than he was before.
(2) Odinga is not pro-American. As far as I can see, his sympathies seem to lie with the Muslim fundamentalists. There is no American interest in promoting Odinga. In fact, the American interest would logically lie in opposing Odinga.
Yes, but Obama's father was a Luo, and so is Odinga.
Of course, it's also possible that they're related; but it's probably Obama trying to please his crazy family (in a stupid, counterproductive, immature way, of course).
Or more likely, Obama's self-image demanded at that time that he "fight the power" with his Luo brother, blah blah, whatever sounds romantic at the time.
Comments 18
Reply
The MoU she bases her claims on was made public by Wikileaks. What she failed to mention is the accompanying analysis:
Purported Memorandum of Understanding between Kenyan Presidential contender Raila Odinga and Kenyans Muslim leadership, NAMLEF. A likely fraud, denied by its purported authors.
Wikileaks constitutional analysis:
Most of the pledges couldn't be met by any presidential candidate as they are inherently unconstitutional and would mightily annoy the non-Muslim majority in Kenya.
A close reading of the purported "MOU" reveals that its pledges could not realistically have been expected to be met by the MOU's other purported party "The Leadership" of Muslims.
.....
Wikileaks later got hold of what they think is the actual MoU ( ... )
Reply
As for Mr. Obama, his entire history in the conduct of foreign affairs could be roughly summarized as ‘always backing the worst horse in the stable’.
Reply
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 ( ... )
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
The libs will excuse it or pretend it really isn't as extreme as, say... the Republicans.
Reply
(1) Odinga originally had no actual authority in Kenya. Obama went out of his way to support Odinga in 2007, when Odinga was simply an especially nasty factional leader. He has never actually achieved supreme power in Kenya, and is now farther away from it than he was before.
(2) Odinga is not pro-American. As far as I can see, his sympathies seem to lie with the Muslim fundamentalists. There is no American interest in promoting Odinga. In fact, the American interest would logically lie in opposing Odinga.
Reply
Of course, it's also possible that they're related; but it's probably Obama trying to please his crazy family (in a stupid, counterproductive, immature way, of course).
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment