In 1990, it was reported (based on interviews and/or input from Obama) by the NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, and L.A. Times -- four of the widest circulation and top-echelon newspapers in the U.S. -- that Obama was "born in Hawaii." As of 1990, Obama's Hawaiian birth was thus a matter of public record.
But you can't see why in 1991 the idea of Obama producing a "born in Kenya" book is thus a total non-starter, a proposition that would make Acton & Dystel look utterly foolish?
Your lack of critical thinking skills continues to amaze.
‘But you can’t see why in 1991 the idea of Obama producing a “born in Kenya” book is thus a total non-starter, a proposition that would make Acton & Dystel look utterly foolish?’
The fact of Obama being paid trice to produce a ‘born in Kenya book’ is not my idea. It is what actually happened. You are the one struggling with the facts, not I.
As far as the agency’s position goes, they’ve explained it well enough. Acton and Dystel admitted they acquired the “fact” that Obama was born in Kenya. To maintain it for what—iirc, 16 yrs—in printed form can only mean that they saw excellent documentation for that “fact.”