If Another 911 Happens It's Cheney - US Peace Movement

[Rowan Berkeley]

THE KENNEBUNKPORT WARNING
http://www.911blogger.com/node/10905

(note from Rowan - the presence of Kaminski on the signatory list has caused Jon Gold to get all excited again, and he is organising protests to Tarpley)

To the American people, and to peace loving individuals everywhere:

Massive evidence has come to our attention which shows that the backers, controllers, and allies of Vice President Dick Cheney are determined to orchestrate and manufacture a new 9/11 terror incident, and/or a new Gulf of Tonkin war provocation over the coming weeks and months. Such events would be used by the Bush administration as a pretext for launching an aggressive war against Iran, quite possibly with nuclear weapons, and for imposing a regime of martial law here in the United States. We call on the House of Representatives to proceed immediately to the impeachment of Cheney, as an urgent measure for avoiding a wider and more catastrophic war. Once impeachment has begun, it will be easier for loyal and patriotic military officers to refuse illegal orders coming from the Cheney faction. We solemnly warn the people of the world that any terrorist attack with weapons of mass destruction taking place inside the United States or elsewhere in the immediate future must be considered the prima facie responsibility of the Cheney faction. We urge responsible political leaders everywhere to begin at once to inoculate the public opinion of their countries against such a threatened false flag terror operation.

(Signed) A Group of US Opposition Political Leaders Gathered in Protest at the Bush Compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, August 24-25, 2007

CYNTHIA MCKINNEY, FORMER US CONGRESSWOMAN, GEORGIA

CINDY SHEEHAN, CANDIDATE FOR US CONGRESS, CALIFORNIA

CRAIG HILL, CANDIDATE FOR US CONGRESS, VERMONT GREEN PARTY

BRUCE MARSHALL, CONVENOR, PHILADELPHIA PLATFORM

JAMILLA EL-SHAFEI, KENNEBUNK PEACE DEPARTMENT

WEBSTER G. TARPLEY, AUTHOR

ANN WRIGHT, COLONEL US ARMY RESERVE, FORMER US DIPLOMAT

DR. DAHLIA WASFI, WWW.LIBERATETHIS.COM

GEORGE PAZ MARTIN

JOHN KAMINSKI, LAWYER, IMPEACHMENT ACTIVIST

[TonyGosling]

Cheney is planning another 911
It will make the twin towers look like a damp firecracker.
It's now OFFICIAL!
Don't let them get away with it!

Encourage everyone to sign up to this - as the US Peace movement is taking this up so should we - spread it as far and wide as possible. And ask anyone you think has a bit of clout to sign up too!
Send to MP's Police, media etc etc. It will be an excuse to attack Iran.



contact
BRUCE MARSHALL, CONVENOR, PHILADELPHIA PLATFORM
http://actindependent.org/

[TonyGosling]

Here is a link to an image of the signed declaration

http://www.bilderberg.org/kennebun.jpg
http://www.bilderberg-mirror.org.uk/kennebun.jpg

[Rowan Berkeley]

What happened about John Kaminski?

[chek]

This Kennebunkport Warning affair seems to be getting murkier and murkier, with Webster Tarpley and Kevin Barret - who I have a lot of time for - saying the signatories are genuine, and then Dahlia Wasfi (whom I have no clue about) stating, "Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney, and Jamilla El-Shafei, none of us signed that document."

Cynthia McKinney's signature is not even on the document, and I find it hard to believe an alleged comment from Webster Tarpley that Cindy Sheehan has succumbed to threats to deny the authenticity of the warning.





On the one hand I'm leaning towards the view that keeping the Cheney faction in the spotlight might help to deter them - at least somewhat from their more egregiously blatant stunts, but on the other hand forgery - if that were indeed the case - is a moral if not statutory criminal offence under any regime's legal code.
Even that of the Era of Sweetness and Light.

Triple pinch of salt taken and awaiting developments is my view at present.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/10947?page=1[/img]

[egw]

[TonyGosling]

Have a listen to the full story of the Kennebubkport Warning here
http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=24495

[egw]

I can't bring myself to sit in front of a computer and listen to a recording of people talking. If it were Jesus and the Buddha, maybe, but not Tarpley. I learned yesterday that he has had Jim Fetzer on his show for a chat. Bleuchhh! I can only hope that if Tarpley ever says something important, someone will let me know.

He has done damage to his credibility with this Kennebunkport thing.

See here.

And here.

[Thermate911]

Can't agree with you, egw.

I've read and dissected this 'warning' numerous times now and, IMV, there's nothing in it that can be refuted. The 'massive evidence' expression could have been enlarged upon for sure, but we all know of the 'massive volume of evidence' - starting right back there with Norm Mineta and the NORAD/FAA 'dilemma'.

Have you noticed that those who have 'backed off' are women? Women of great heart but also women up to now not fully exposed to the ways of world's most powerful psychopaths?

We are all so mired in the product of psy-ops now it is becoming increasingly difficult not to treat it all as so much multi-dimensional chess with death the result of an error. I believe we might support this warning, regardless of all the axes to grind by the major players. It is a bald statement of truth, however far from being cast-iron evidence as yet. We know them by their acts.

Here's further psy-op stuff from the dubious CIA's KOS source to reinforce the point I'm not making!

""We Are Going To Hit Iran. Bigtime"
by Maccabee
Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 03:50:24 PM PDT

I have a friend who is an LSO on a carrier attack group that is planning and staging a strike group deployment into the Gulf of Hormuz. (LSO: Landing Signal Officer- she directs carrier aircraft while landing) She told me we are going to attack Iran. She said that all the Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking are finished. That means that all the targets have been chosen, prioritized, and tasked to specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers and so forth.

I asked her why she is telling me this.

Her answer was really amazing." ...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/1/183018/1527

-----------------------------------

Let's not fall prey to the divide and rule mob. Let's vote with our consciences and take advantage of any thread that leads to resolution of 9/11 and the collapse of the PNAC monster.
.

[acrobat74]

[Rowan Berkeley]

There are some very strange theories circulating on the US boards about this, such that Tarpley is sabotaging McKinney on behalf of Larouche. On the plus side, I see the issue has brought the always exhilerating Col. Jenny Sparks to the surface:
http://truthaction.org/forum/index.php

[xmasdale]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6658



Behind Bush's Latest Anti-Iranian Threats


by Muriel Mirak-Weissbach, Global Research, August 31, 2007



President Bush's most recent ranting, in which he accused Iran of threatening to unleash a "nuclear holocaust," must be seen, for sure, in the context of the drumbeat for military aggression against the Islamic Republic.

Within the space of a few days, several articles appeared in the mainstream press, indicating that the Cheney project for launching a new war is on the front burner. Most explicit was the report of two British think tankers, Daniel Pletsch and Martin Butcher, issued on August 27 and leaked by Raw Story the following day. Their study, entitled, "Considering a war with Iran: A discussion paper on WMD in the Middle East," claimed that the US could destroy Iran's nuclear program, industrial base and government infrastructure within days.
But Bush's specific reference to Iran's alleged ambitions to develop a nuclear bomb, should be placed in the category of one who "doth protest too much." What Bush did NOT mention is a development of major significance, which may well have been the trigger for his wild assertions. This was the agreement reached by the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran, which proved that the persistent, rigorous approach pursued by the IAEA, to solve the conflict over Iran's nuclear energy program through diplomatic means, has yielded results which the Agency itself has dubbed a breakthrough. The contention of the Bush-Cheney administration, which is bent on war at all costs, has been that the efforts of the European Union group of three (Great Britain, Germany and France) as well as those of the IAEA, have been destined to failure, since Tehran was only interested in gaining time to build its bomb.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaking to journalists in Tehran on August 28, announced unequivocably that he believed, on the basis of the agreement with the IAEA, that the entire matter should be considered "closed." This was not empty rhetoric of the sort often attributed to Ahmadinejad, but a statement of fact, as documented in the "Understandings of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the IAEA on the modalities of resolution of the outstanding issues," published on August 29, by the new Iranian all news station News TV, among others. The text makes clear that the discussion process involving Iranian chief negotiator Ali Larijani and his IAEA interlocutors, including Director General Mohammad ElBaradei, has borne its desired fruits: to wit, that through the question-and-answer process, whereby the IAEA has raised its queries regarding specific aspects of Iran's program and Iran has given its clarifications, has satisfied the agency's demands. In sum, the document states that certain specific issues have been fully resolved, and that those yet to be resolved, will be dealt with in the same manner, such that specific timeframes can be defined for "closing the dossier," as Ahmadinejad put it.

The text of the agreement was published on request of Iran, "as an INFCIRC document and to be made available to the public through the IAEA website." It states: "Pursuant to the negotiations between H.E. Dr. Larijani, I. R. of Iran's Secretary of Supreme National Security Council and H.E. Dr. ElBaradei, Director General of the IAEA, in Vienna; following the initiative and good will of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the agreement made, a high ranking delegation consisting of the directors of technical, legal and political departments of the IAEA, paid a visit to Tehran from 11 to 12 July 2007 during which 'Understandings of The Islamic Republic of Iran and the IAEA on the Modalities of Resolution of the Outstanding Issues, Tehran 12 July 2007' were prepared."

The text reports on the following meetings that took place in Vienna and Tehran on July 24, and August 20-21, following which "both Parties reached the following understandings...." First, regarding the enirchment program, which has been targetted by the Bush-Cheney cabal as "proof" that Tehran wants the bomb. "The Agency and Iran agreed to cooperate in preparing the safeguards approach for the Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant in accordance with Iran's Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement. The draft text of the safeguards approach paper, and the facility attachment of IRN- were provided to Iran on 23 July 2007. The safeguards approach and the facility attachment were discussed during technical meetings in Iran between the Agency and the AEOI from 6 to 8 August 2007. Further discussions will be held with the aim of finalizing the facility attachment by the end of September 2007."

As for the heavy water reactor in Arak, "Iran agreed with the Agency's request to visit the heavy water research reactor (IR40) site in Arak. A successful visit took place on 30 July 2007." Furthermore, it is reported that "On 12 July 2007, Iran accepted the designation of five additional inspectors" and "On 12 July 2007, Iran agreed to issue one year multiple entry visas for 14 inspectors and staff of the Agency."

Under the rubric of "Past Outstanding Issues," the question of plutonium experiments was dealt with. Here, the joint text reports that in the course of July and August, the IAEA presented questions, and Iran, answers, to various issues. Then, in a sentence which might have caused heart tremors for Dick Cheney, the text states: "On 20 August 2007 the Agency stated that earlier statements made by Iran <are consistent with the Agency's findings>, and <thus this matter is resolved> (emphasis added). This will be communicated officially by the Agency to Iran through a letter."

Regarding other vital issues, a clear timeline is set for the question-and-answer process to yield its results. regarding the issue of P1-P2, the IAEA says the Pu experiments should close by August 31, and that it will therefore provide all its remaining questions to Iran by that date. Discussions are scheduled then for September 24-25 in Tehran, followed by a mid-October meeting, both to clarify the questions. "The Agency's target date for the closure of this issue is November 2007," says the text.

And, for remaining issues, the same sensible approach is adopted: "once all the above mentioned issues are concluded and their files are closed," further questions can be submitted by the IAEA, again with specific dates, and Iran will respond, within deadlines.

In a final paragraph entitled "General Understandings," the document asserts five points which must have sent Bush ballistic. Since it is absurd to imagine that the establishment press will give the public any insight into what is going on here between the IAEA and Iran, it is worth quoting the points in full:

"1. These modalities cover all remaining issues and the Agency confirmed that there are no other remaining issues and ambiguities regarding Iran's past nuclear program and activities.

2. The Agency agreed to provide Iran with all remaining questions according to the above work plan. This means that after receiving the questions, no other questions are left. Iran will provide the Agency with the required clarifications and information.

3. The Agency's delegation is of the view that the agreement on the above issues shall further promote the efficiency of the implementation of safeguards in Iran and its ability to conclude the exclusive peaceful nature of the Iran's nuclear activities.

4. The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use.

5. The Agency and Iran agreed that after the implementation of the above work plan and the agreed modalities for resolving the outstanding issues, the implementation of safeguards in Iran will be conducted in a routine manner."

The gist of this document is that, contrary to the hysterical ravings from the White House, diplomacy does work, and that if Iran were treated as a normal country, with due respect, as Tehran has always insisted, then progress could be made on any front. The implications of the IAEA-Iran "understandings" are profound: we are not dealing here with a "rogue state" or a member of the "axis of evil," but with a sovereign nation which correctly asserts its right to nuclear energy technology, in the framework of the IAEA and NPT.

The fact that the IAEA reached this groundbreaking agreement has thrown a major monkey-wrench into the Bush-Cheney cabal's plans for war, based on their claims that Iran is building the bomb. But then, Washington will quickly retort, aren't the Iranian Revolutionary Guards killing our troops in Iraq?

[xmasdale]

Of course we can speculate on all sorts of scenarios unfolding.

Bush is becoming an increasing embarrassment and liability to the Republican party. He may be drinking again and evidence seems to suggest that Cheney is the gung-ho boy pushing to advance the pro-war lobby's agenda.

So why not assassinate Bush, make it look as though the Iranians did it, declare, as Blair did, that an investigation would be a ludicrous diversion because we know who did it, and have Cheney launch an all-out attack on Iran and possibly declare martial law at home?

Would Russia tolerate it; would China? Would they risk a nuclear war on their doorstep in an attempt to stop it?

I shudder at the evil which would unfold.

This madness must be exposed and stopped.

[outsider]

I can't find anything on Cindy Sheehan's 'Gold Star Families for Peace' site, except the following; if she had signed, one would expect it to be there:

THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING


Anti-war protesters march in Kennebunkport
August 25, 2007

KENNEBUNKPORT, Maine --Even though President Bush wasn't in town, hundreds of anti-war protesters including Cindy Sheehan marched by the Bush family compound on a scorching, muggy Saturday.

"This is really energizing to be with people who want this war to end," Sheehan, who lost a son in Iraq, told the cheering crowd. "We can't put our signs away and sit on our couches. We have to press Congress to end this war."

Activists from a number of states came to a local school to begin a two-mile march to the Bush summer home at Walker's Point. Along the way some pounded drums, chanted and carried signs and banners with slogans such as "Don't Pay for this War" and "Care for Vets."

Police gave no official crowd count, but other observers estimated that at least 1,200 demonstrators turned out. One of the marchers, Alice Copeland Brown of Canton, Mass., said about 3,000 people were there.

Brown said her son has recently returned from duty in Iraq, but others are not coming home alive. Brown said billions of dollars are being wasted on the war that could be used for schools, health care and other public services.

"Our children are dying for nothing," she said.

Dick Nelson of Lebanon, N.H., said he was visiting Maine and decided to come to the rally with his 16-year-old daughter, Andrea.

"It seemed like our civic duty," said Nelson.

A small-scale Vietnam Wall-like monument, listing the names of the soldiers killed in Iraq, was set up on the school's sports field where the protesters assembled. Organizers included veterans' peace groups.

After the march, the Indigo Girls musical group entertained the demonstrators at the rally site.

Some protesters called for Bush's and Vice President Dick Cheney's impeachment, but others had more moderate messages of support for the troops and opposition to the war.

"You can support the troops and not support the war," said Anne Chay, whose son is serving in Iraq.

Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich, who was also a frequent visitor to Maine during his 2004 campaign, told the crowd, "We simply have to get out of Iraq. We have to end this war."

Organizers had previously hoped to draw as many as 10,000 protesters to the rally.

Observers said verbal skirmishes with some of the counter-protesters broke out along the march route, but no violence or physical confrontations were reported. As many as a few dozen counter-protesters were said to be in the area.



© Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[Thermate911]

[outsider]

Seems it was a hoax:

http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2007/08/kennebunkport-warning-hoax-s hreds.html

[Thermate911]

Hardly, outsider!

I quote from a quote in your link to winter patriot:-

"Based on emails I have received, it is obvious to me that the big name people are afraid, but I believe that they should not defame those who asked them to sign the petition.

In my view, this accusation of falsified documenting casts a cloud of suspicion over the brave efforts of those signators who are standing by their decision to sign the petition. I stand with those who signed it who are not backing down.

Laurie Dobson"

---

I think disinfo is going into overdrive. FUD, too! This document states the truth - that is enough to support those who wrote and signed it - to the hilt - NOW.

What's the alternative - watch whilst those who speak out FOR ALL OF US get carved up and trashed?

What are we - flakes, wimps or genuinely serious about neutralising the NWO? Do you think it can be achieved entirely without loss of 'good guys? History implies otherwise...
.

[egw]

A post by arabesque:

In Summary:

We now have FIVE people who:

1. CLAIM they did NOT sign the Kennebunk Warning
2. Say they DID sign another document
3. INDEPENDENTLY claim the document signed involved IMPEACHMENT
4. SUPPORT 9/11 truth and another investigation
5. HAVE NOT attacked the authors of this document

On the other side we have:

1. Multiple accusations of "liar", ad-hominems, and unproven speculations about "fearful signers"
2. No apologies for these accusations and ad-hominems against non-9/11 truth activists.
3. Direct support for DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS (Fetzer, Tarpley, Craig Hill (citing Judy Wood), and Morgan Stack have ALL supported DEW in some form).
4. No indications that the signatures will be removed from the warning._________________
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/

[Disco_Destroyer]

Someone just dropped this on Myspace bulletins

[Disco_Destroyer]

and this:-

[Skeptic]

thanks for those DD!

[acrobat74]

Statements like 'I have a friend who...' posted somewhere on the Internet are not evidence for a major military confrontation.

[TonyGosling]

It's clear, with plenty of evidence already posted, that this is a deadly serious announcement and warning.

Let us all hope and pray that Cheney's plans are thwarted.


Link



Link

[acrobat74]

[TonyGosling]

I tell you what, I'll repost the file. In this sort of world situation where the rule of international law has been broken down and the United Nations rendered impotent it's a bad idea to ignore warnings our peers across the pond. I consider these people to be our peers.

[conspiracy analyst]

[Thermate911]

It's good to see at least some here are keeping focussed on the message rather than the strange and divisive antics of the messengers.

I won't repeat myself about the 'massive evidence' phrase - pls see above.

What does concern me most is the wall of noise and fog going up on most 911 sites right now. From Joan & arabesque on truthaction to LaRouche exposees, so many posters seem to be ignoring the import of the actual message altogether.

CoIntelPro? Partly. Yet there are so many vested interests involved, so many axes to grind, so much in-fighting, one could almost be made to believe that known FACT was irrelevant!

The central known fact is that psychopath Cheney has a record of skullduggery going back decades. Why should he be treated any differently now his 'escapades' are so widely documented?

Corroboration of the 'Scherff' family connections and dealings would lend further credence to a 'grand' longterm design of 'creative destructionism' now looking so attractive to the BoGrove / Bilderberg mob

Recap:

There is nothing inherently false or misleading in this Warning - no mention of exotic destructive mechanisms - just a declaration that responsibility for the world's pain is now placed fairly and squarely where it belongs. On the Rockefellers, the Mellons, the Cheneys, the Warburgs and 10,000 other 'god-like' creatures of darkness.

The 'end game' has commenced. Why should humanity at large lose out to a few psychopaths?

---
a mundane footnote - this forums DB is acting up again, so apologies if this becomes multiple postings...!
.

[outsider]

I don't believe for a moment that Cynthia and Cindy signed the Declaration then 'chickened out' and denied it, and I think it's highly irresponsible (and no way to greet our guest Cynthia Mc Kinney) by suggesting it.
Cynthia and Cindy have shown incredible courage in 'speaking Truth to Power'; it's worse than irresponsible, it's downright despicable to make these suggestions of cowardice with no evidence.

[Disco_Destroyer]

[acrobat74]