How journalists desperate for dirt on Obama fell for forged documents without so much as an eye blink.
| “ |
If Mr. Obama did not know about Mr. Odinga’s electoral deal with the Kenyan Islamists when he offered his support, then he should have known. If he did know, then he is guilty of lending the prestige of his office to America’s enemies in the global war on terror. We need to know exactly what Mr. Obama knew about Mr. Odinga, and precisely when he knew it.
|
„ |
| — Daniel Johnson, The New York Sun |
| “ |
…the real significance of the picture is surely that it renews concern about Obama’s involvement in Kenyan politics — in particular, his apparent support for the Kenyan opposition leader Raila Odinga, who signed a memorandum of understanding with Kenyan Muslims to turn Kenya into an Islamic state governed by sharia law.
|
„ |
| — Melanie Phillips, The Spectator |
JOEL WHITNEY (Guernica Magazine) with JULIAN ASSANGE (Wikileaks)
July 16, 2008
The transparency website Wikileaks has released a document further debunking claims that a Kenyan politician close to Senator Barack Obama sought votes by virtually pledging to turn the Christian country into a militant Muslim stronghold. Since the start of the year, the claims, contextualized to insinuate that Sentator Obama supports Sharia law, have been spread by both traditional and online media. As of July 2008, Google lists over 250,000 webpages connecting the two politicians.
Dated August 29, 2007, the new document is a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Kenya’s now Prime Minister Raila Odinga and the National Muslim Leaders’ Forum; in the MOU, Odinga pledges to look into the case of 100 Kenyans who were illegally renditioned to places like Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Somalia, and Ethiopia in January and February 2007. Wikileaks also released a followup letter and the names of witnesses to the signing of the document.
Last fall, a forged version was circulated in the lead-up to the presidential election in Kenya alleging a number of preposterous claims about Odinga. Rather than pledging, for instance, to look into the case of Abdulmalik Mohamed, a Kenyan held at Guantanamo, and others like him, the forged MOU alleged that Odinga had virtually agreed to turn Kenya into a new Saudi Arabia: allowing for Sharia Law, banning alcohol, mandating Muslim dress codes and so on. The document is significant for a number of reasons, in the United States because it re-contextualizes Senator Obama’s relationship with his ancestral homeland (on his father’s side) and with Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga. For Kenyans, it is significant in that it corrects a lie about the prime minister that put him at odds with his voters.
Wikileaks published the forged document, which was spreading through email, listing it as a likely fake on November 14, 2007. It was not hard to debunk it.
- “Most of the pledges [in the fake] couldn’t be met by any presidential candidate,” Wikileaks wrote, “as they are inherently unconstitutional and would mightily annoy the non-Muslim majority in Kenya… The idea behind the smear is to turn a fairly large and committed evangelical Christian block against poor Raila, who is often accused of ambivalent religious allegiance.”
Wikileaks’s analysis aside, it doesn’t take very advanced math, wikipedia or googling skills to recognize that risking up to 80% of the vote (Kenya’s Christian majority) to cater to a minority of 10% (its Muslims) doesn’t add up and both Ralia Odinga and NAMELEF publicly declared the document a forgery. But writers like the New York Sun’s Daniel Johnson fell hard for the fake. Senator Obama had just been to Kenya a year before and is a member of the same tribe (the 3 million strong Luo) as Raila Odinga; smelling an easy take down, Johnson swung. Here’s Johnson, two full months after Wikileaks first outed the document as probably a fake:
- “In August 2006, Mr. Obama visited Kenya and spoke in support of Mr. Odinga’s candidacy at rallies in Nairobi. The Web site Atlas Shrugs has even posted a photograph of the two men side by side. More recently, Mr. Odinga says that Mr. Obama interrupted his campaigning in New Hampshire to have a telephone conversation with his African cousin about the constitutional crisis in Kenya.”
Titled “The Kenya Connection,” Johnson’s piece ends with no shortage of conspiratorial drama and bravado:
- “If Mr. Obama did not know about Mr. Odinga’s electoral deal with the Kenyan Islamists when he offered his support, then he should have known. If he did know, then he is guilty of lending the prestige of his office to America’s enemies in the global war on terror. We need to know exactly what Mr. Obama knew about Mr. Odinga, and precisely when he knew it.”
The same question must now be asked of journalists like Mr. Johnson. Wikileaks calls the fake MOU part of a “plot to frame Odinga and Obama” and notes that their calling the document a fake “did not stop Kenyan and US proponents of the document deliberately avoiding the WikiLeaks analysis by linking directly to the memorandum, as opposed to its description page [where it was plainly described as fake].”
The New York Sun, The Spectator and all those who followed have questions to answer about the quality and integrity of their journalism.
See
- Kenyan PM Raila Odinga 2007 secret MoU with Muslim leaders and Extraordinary Rendition in East Africa – the real MoU and Kenya’s extraordinary rendition lists
- MOU between Raila Odinga and Muslims – the fake memorandum of understanding circulated November 2007
- New York Sun – The Kenyan Connection
- The Spectator – The Kenyan Jihad
- The Spectator – The Kenyan Connection
- Atlas Shrugged – Kenya, Islam and Obama Hussien
- Google references for the many media sites which have fallen for the smear
False Headline: The Spectator and New York Sun, not the New Yorker
The headline of this piece implies that the New Yorker is involved, but that is not the case. The questionably reputable Spectator and New York Sun are at fault and the New Yorkers is inappropriately smeared by the headline.
- This was referring to the New Yorker’s expose on Obama’s “islamicification”, which neglected to cover the detail here. Wikileaks 17:04, 25 July 2008 (GMT)
Melanie Phillips is an anti-Muslim bigot.
Melanie Phillips, the author of the Spectator article, is deranged and obsessed with imagined Muslim plots. Her book, Londonistan, was the nastiest piece of racist rhetoric I have seen in mainstream publication in a long time. I actually asked the manager of my local Waterstones to take it off the shelves.
She used to be a reasonable journalist. I don’t know what tipped her but she is a sort of hate-speech-for-hire caricature now. Pay her no attention.
who is the author of the following excerpted quote?
“The idea behind the smear is to turn a fairly large and committed evangelical Christian block against poor Raila, who is often accused of ambivalent religious allegiance.”
The source uses the word ‘poor’ to describe Raila. A poor choice (pun intended) of words unless the intent is to publicly air support for Raila, which seems to toss out the notion of unbiased reporting. Is the one crying ‘bias!’ not equally so? Seems to be an example of the kettle maligning the pot.
Who is responsible for forging these documents?