CONTEXTUALIZING MY COMMENT TO THE DOE FAMILY

Al. Hussein Fadiga

To fully contextualize what I was alluding to, I am going to use the Bernard Madoff case as an example. “On December 10, 2008, Madoff's sons told authorities that their father had confessed to them that the asset management unit of his firm was a massive Ponzi scheme, and quoted him as describing it as’ one big lie. The following day, FBI agents arrested Madoff and charged him with one count of securities fraud. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had previously conducted investigations into Madoff's business practices, but did not uncover the massive fraud”.

Now, do you guys actually believe that Madoff children hated him because they turned him in to the federal authority? HELL NO. ALL THEY DID WAS USE HIM AS A PAWN TO SAVE THE FAMILY LEGACY. SMART POLITICAL MOVE. UNDERSTANDING THIS SCENARIO WILL SHED A LIGHT INTO WHAT I WAS ALLUDING TO. IN NO WAY WAS I TRYING TO VILIFY THE DOES. THANKS AND STOP THIS HULLABALOO…

@ St. Clare, I am a little disappointed at your choice of words and the manner in which you and some of the folks on here have taken my article out of context. Please stop distorting my position. Some of you are not even reading what I have written with comprehension or have not read it at all. Most of the comments in this article were hypothetical and advice that I would have given Samuel K. Doe kids if I was their political consultant. This has nothing to do with hate, DOE or the Krahn tribe. I was speaking hypothetically as a politician giving advice to a client.

My attitude in this article said nothing about Samuel K. Doe kids abandoning their dad nor was I insinuating that these children were bad. I posted their family photo because I was speaking to all the kids. What prompted my hypothetical speech was the series of speeches and interviews given by SKD Jr. and his sister when they first came out in the public. I expected their first speeches to have been remorseful and unifying rather than defensive. Attacking president Sirleaf was also a wrong move. It could have been done later after they have captured the hearts of Liberian.

A lot of Liberians have been fervent to know DOE Jr. persona. His first public appearance was extremely crucial because it would have portrayed him as either an incarnation of his dad or the saint version of him. Coming out with a strong speech against an “old lady” (president Sirleaf was a bad move). Again, I am/was only speaking hypothetically as a political adviser. This has nothing to do with resentment for these children. I made it emphatically clear that anyone blaming these children for their dad's allege crimes should have their head examine.

Stop taking my post out of context. My position is only providing a political correct way I felt these children would have avoided all this political scrutiny and made them more mainstream. Lastly, all that was said was hypothetical. I specifically said that they are young and charming; therefore, they should use that to their advantage. The hypothetical speech that I wrote in my opinion would have eased the association of them with their dad and providing them a chance to start a new chapter. Some would have still vilified them, but more people would have come to their defense. You guys need to stop all this filibuster and put my article into perspective. I still maintain that Samuel K. Doe children are immensely likeable and should use that to their advantage. Youth, beauty and personality plays a huge role in likeability.