He used to be respected in 911 Truth, but now he's been sacked:
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2501
We don't need leaders who spread hoaxes...and we really don't need them lecturing us about Guy Fawkes and 9/11 as Tarpley will start doing in a couple of days...
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2501 We don't need leaders who spread hoaxes...and we really don't need them lecturing us about Guy Fawkes and 9/11 as Tarpley will start doing in a couple of days...
From Arabesque's blog:
August 31, 2007
The Kennebunkport Warning: Hoax?
By Arabesque
August 31, 2007
Updated: October 1, 2007
The Kennebunkport Warning claimed that a group of 9/11 and anti-war activists joined together to sign a document warning of a false flag terror attack and resulting war with Iran. Like most, I first believed that the Kennebunkport Warning and the signatures were legitimate.
While the warning may or may not be valid, the signatures of Cindy Sheehan, Dahlia S. Wasfi, and others have been contested.
When initially released, the warning claimed "massive evidence" without supplying any. Curiosity was justifiably invoked, so I independently provided a link to my own research. A few days later, Tarpley supplied his evidence, which included a fake “90 days” warning by FOX news—an exact word for word reprint of an article published in 2005. While I strongly agree that is there is a serious risk of an attack on Iran (and by extension a "trigger" to justify it), I strongly disagree with the possible unethical use of signatures to support such a warning. The question of whether another false flag attack will occur is uncertain, but there is very strong evidence that the Bush administration intends to go to war with Iran.
The Kennebunkport Warning became a controversy for two reasons:
1) The denial of signatures by the anti-war activists
2) The use of incivility against the anti-war activists by Webster Tarpley and his associates
Initially, John Leonard, Webster Tarpley’s book publisher claimed that "as far as Dahlia Wasfi is concerned, I was a guest on Webster's radio show last night so I heard Bruce Marshall and Janice Weir say they saw her sign the statement." The controversy however is not the fact that a document was signed—the controversy is over which document was signed.
Dahlia S. Wasfi, MD claimed "I signed a statement in Kennebunkport to endorse the impeachment of Dick Cheney, but my signature has been used on this "Warning" without my consent. While I was humbled to have my signature misappropriated with such prominent voices as Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney, and Jamilla El-Shafei, none of us signed that document." Elsewhere she stated "I don't know about the validity of this ‘warning,’ but the people who put this list together were dishonest about signatories. They took our signatures for something else and put it on this. Very weird."
Cindy Sheehan via MySpace called the warning “shady”, and confirmed that "the same thing happened to me as happened to dahlia." A few days later, this joint release was posted, further suggesting that an alternative document involving impeachment was signed:
“Each of us were approached during the rally at the Kennebunkport event on August 25, 2007, to sign a statement calling for the immediate impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney. Since then, the statement has been altered and posted on the internet, making it appear as if we have evidence that this administration will carry out a "false-flag terror operation." None of us have such evidence, and therefore, none of us signed a statement stating that we do. We wish the authors of the document well in continuing much needed investigations of all aspects of 9/11.
Signed:
Jamilla El-Shafei
Cindy Sheehan
Dahlia Wasfi
Ann Wright”
Another alleged signer named Kris further corroborated the claim that the document involved “impeachment”:
“I DEFINITELY did NOT sign a paper with the Kennebunk Warning physically on it. My memory is of signing a piece of paper that simply had columns for signatures and email addresses, and perhaps a brief statement calling for impeachment at the top… I personally feel that while the Bush administration is certainly MORALLY capable of orchestrating a 911 false flag attack, and that there are definitely unanswered questions about 911, I have seen no evidence which proves it to me.”
From these statements, we have the following story:
1. The alleged signers did not sign the Kennebunkport warning
2. The alleged signers did not see the “massive evidence” declared in the Kennebunkport Warning
3. The actual document signed involved impeachment
The first and third claims are key, but the Kennebunkport warning states in its third sentence: “we call on the House of Representatives to proceed immediately to the impeachment of Cheney.”
With five individuals claiming that they did not sign the warning, and providing essentially the exact same story that a document involving only impeachment was signed—it is very hard to believe that they are not telling the truth and dismiss their accounts. However, a scanned copy of the signatures eventually emerged providing yet more intrigue and controversy. Admittedly, it is not confirmed at this point that the signatures were taken from another document and put onto the Kennebunkport Warning as the anti-war activists allege. However, the five corroborated statements should not be dismissed easily.
The question becomes, if the signatures on the Kennebunkport Warning are not legitimate as alleged by the anti-war activists, what is its purpose? Is its purpose to discredit future warnings, or even the Kennebunkport Warning itself? Is its purpose to discredit anti-war activists by associating them with controversial 9/11 activists like Jim Fetzer and Judy Wood and their space beams and TV fakery? Is its purpose to create division between 9/11 truth activists and the anti-war movement?
The Kennebunkport warning was not the first of its kind. In fact, many of the principals involved in supporting the Kennebunkport warning had issued previous warnings, press releases, and radio interviews about the subject of another false flag attack in the months before the Kennebunkport controversy. In particular, Scholars for 9/11 Truth issued a press release that claimed “a fake attack on the US” was looming, Webster Tarpley issued a previous warning entitled “Cheney Determined To Strike This Summer”, and Captain May issued several warnings in Portland about a possible nuclear false flag incident. In response to these articles, May was interviewed by both Kevin Barrett and Jim Fetzer on their radio shows multiple times to discuss the possibility of another false flag attack.
Many of those who supported previous warnings dispute the claims of the anti-war activists. Among these are Kevin Barrett according to Captain May and Webster Tarpley, an author of the Warning. Kevin Barrett says that "it is overwhelmingly probable that the people who say they never signed the warning are lying, and that they signed, then had second thoughts and backed out... or, just possibly, did not fully digest what they had signed when they signed it." Laurie Dobson and others claim (or rather, insinuate without evidence) that “it is obvious to me that the big name people are afraid.” This claim does not appear to have merit since no evidence is given to support it, and Cindy Sheehan had appeared several times on Alex Jones’ radio show and elsewhere to discuss her 9/11 questions and support for a new investigation saying that the collapse of the twin towers looked “like a controlled demolition.” In fact, Sheehan even warned of a “distinct possibility” of a US-sponsored false flag attack. She has never retracted these comments due to “fear”. An important distinction here is the difference between “distinct possibility” and “massive evidence” as alleged in the Kennebunkport warning. The other alleged signers all indicated that they supported another 9/11 investigation. These facts seem to suggest that the possibility of retracted signature from the warning due to “fear” is implausible and unlikely.
Craig Hill claims to be one of the real signers of the warning. According to Michael Wolsey on 911blogger, "I just spoke with Craig Hill, treasurer of the Green Party of Vermont who verified that he is indeed a signatory of this document and indicated to me that the document is very real." Chris Emery, who also signed the Kennebunkport warning, requested his name be taken off of the document after witnessing the treatment of the alleged singers by Webster Tarpley and his associates.
Strangely, four of the promoters of the warning have ties to Lyndon LaRouche; a political figure who has been involved in promoting violent actions against activists in the past. Webster Tarpley, one of the main figures in the controversy has a strong connection with LaRouche. Bruce Marshal (one of the originators of the warning), Craig Hill (calling the anti-war activists liars), and Laurie Dobson (claiming to be an “eyewitness” to the signings) are all connected to LaRouche. By coincidence or conspiracy, most of the inflammatory comments and insinuations about “fearful signers” against the anti-war activists are coming from LaRouche associates.
The connection to LaRouche is not the only strange association. Craig Hill says, “the immediate aim of the militarization of space via nuclear weapons and other exotic dangers orbiting Earth, pointing down and controlling entire societies under threat they, too, may suffer that which Dr Judy Wood persuasively suggests occurred in NYC on 9/11.” Warning signers Morgan Stack, Jim Fetzer, Daniel Abrahamson, and Webster Tarpley, and to a lesser extent, Kevin Barrett have also supported the highly dubious theory of directed energy weapons (DEW) on 9/11. It can be observed that few 9/11 Truth activists claim that the WTC towers were destroyed with Space Weapons and the theory appears to be a deliberate ‘guilt by association’ Trojan horse. The theory has been debunked many times and is likely deliberate disinformation. An amusing and embarrassing mp3 excerpt of Judy Wood and Jim Fetzer discussing “beams” from space reveals the credibility of its advocates.
Why promote ideas like directed energy weapons and create controversy over signatures on a document? Discrediting and dividing activist groups is a historical part of FBI CoIntelPro operations and the Kennebunkport Warning Hoax could possibly be another stunning example. The purpose of CoIntelPro is to “divide, confuse, [and] weaken in diverse ways” activist groups. Effective ways of accomplishing this include divisive accusations, personal attacks, and disruptive behavior. A likely previous example was the “controlled demolition” of Scholars for 9/11 truth by Jim Fetzer, who offered his signature to the warning. Fetzer was interviewed by Tarpley shortly after the Warning was submitted to 911blogger and proclaimed, "Scholars stands with you. You may make Scholars for 9/11 Truth a signatory to your Kennebunkport Warning. [...] Keep up the great work! You are a clear, strong voice for truth!” Jim Fetzer then issued a press release entitled "Scholars endorse 'The Kennebunkport Warning': Report ominous signs of a privatized takeover of the nation."
After the controversy of faked signatures emerged, Webster Tarpley, the supplier of the “massive evidence” outrageously asserted:
"Some of the signers, under the obvious threats of totalitarian forces, are lying in appalling fashion about what they signed and if they signed. You can see for yourself from the facsimile who signed. We need to move beyond these wretched individuals.[sic]"
Why would Tarpley attack Cindy Sheehan and others in this manner? Why his association with Jim Fetzer, (who has a history of disinformation and divisive behavior) so soon after this controversy erupted? Why do Tarpley and three others have connections to LaRouche? Similarly, Mr. Craig Hill (who referenced Judy Wood and Space Weapons) has also attacked Cindy Sheehan and the anti-war activists suggesting that this could be a deliberate CoIntelPro style attempt to divide the peace and 9/11 truth movements. While it may simply be dismissed as bad behavior, it is also a typical divide and conquer strategy of CoIntelPro to create division within activist groups through (false) accusations and allegations. In contrast, Cindy Sheehan and others have refrained from attacking the originators of the warning and have showed support for 9/11 investigations. In my view, this is very strong evidence that we should take their claims seriously.
Soon after voicing our support for the anti-war activists, Webster Tarpley prolifically accused Kennebunkport warning investigators of “CoIntelPro”, “disinformation”, among other accusations and insults.
In Summary:
On the one hand, five of the alleged signers of the warning:
· Claim they did not sign the Kennebunk Warning
· Say they did sign another document
· Independently claim the document signed involved impeachment
· Support 9/11 questions and another investigation
· Have not attacked the authors of this document
On the other side we have:
· Multiple accusations of "liar", personal attacks, divisive and inflammatory language (i.e. “wretched individuals”, etc), and unproven speculations about "fearful signers"
· No apologies for these accusations and ad-hominems
· Direct support for the highly dubious directed energy weapons (Fetzer, Tarpley, Craig Hill (citing Judy Wood), Daniel Abrahamson and Morgan Stack have all supported this theory in some form).
· Four individuals who appear to be associated with Lyndon Larouche
· No indications that the signatures will be removed from the warning. (update: now the names have an asterisk)
· Collective support for “next 9/11” warnings, with many involved in issuing previous warnings to the Kennebunkport controversy.
· Signatures shown on the warning (it is disputed that the document was signed by the anti-war activists)
Thanks to the good work of 911blogger Col. Jenny Sparks, other signers were contacted to provide more facts in this swirling controversy.
I would like to emphasize that while the truth of this matter has not yet been determined, the main issue is that of divisiveness against the anti-war activists.
For more links go to:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/08/kennebunkport-warning-hoax-controversy.html
August 31, 2007
The Kennebunkport Warning: Hoax?
By Arabesque
August 31, 2007
Updated: October 1, 2007
The Kennebunkport Warning claimed that a group of 9/11 and anti-war activists joined together to sign a document warning of a false flag terror attack and resulting war with Iran. Like most, I first believed that the Kennebunkport Warning and the signatures were legitimate.
While the warning may or may not be valid, the signatures of Cindy Sheehan, Dahlia S. Wasfi, and others have been contested.
When initially released, the warning claimed "massive evidence" without supplying any. Curiosity was justifiably invoked, so I independently provided a link to my own research. A few days later, Tarpley supplied his evidence, which included a fake “90 days” warning by FOX news—an exact word for word reprint of an article published in 2005. While I strongly agree that is there is a serious risk of an attack on Iran (and by extension a "trigger" to justify it), I strongly disagree with the possible unethical use of signatures to support such a warning. The question of whether another false flag attack will occur is uncertain, but there is very strong evidence that the Bush administration intends to go to war with Iran.
The Kennebunkport Warning became a controversy for two reasons:
1) The denial of signatures by the anti-war activists
2) The use of incivility against the anti-war activists by Webster Tarpley and his associates
Initially, John Leonard, Webster Tarpley’s book publisher claimed that "as far as Dahlia Wasfi is concerned, I was a guest on Webster's radio show last night so I heard Bruce Marshall and Janice Weir say they saw her sign the statement." The controversy however is not the fact that a document was signed—the controversy is over which document was signed.
Dahlia S. Wasfi, MD claimed "I signed a statement in Kennebunkport to endorse the impeachment of Dick Cheney, but my signature has been used on this "Warning" without my consent. While I was humbled to have my signature misappropriated with such prominent voices as Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney, and Jamilla El-Shafei, none of us signed that document." Elsewhere she stated "I don't know about the validity of this ‘warning,’ but the people who put this list together were dishonest about signatories. They took our signatures for something else and put it on this. Very weird."
Cindy Sheehan via MySpace called the warning “shady”, and confirmed that "the same thing happened to me as happened to dahlia." A few days later, this joint release was posted, further suggesting that an alternative document involving impeachment was signed:
“Each of us were approached during the rally at the Kennebunkport event on August 25, 2007, to sign a statement calling for the immediate impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney. Since then, the statement has been altered and posted on the internet, making it appear as if we have evidence that this administration will carry out a "false-flag terror operation." None of us have such evidence, and therefore, none of us signed a statement stating that we do. We wish the authors of the document well in continuing much needed investigations of all aspects of 9/11.
Signed:
Jamilla El-Shafei
Cindy Sheehan
Dahlia Wasfi
Ann Wright”
Another alleged signer named Kris further corroborated the claim that the document involved “impeachment”:
“I DEFINITELY did NOT sign a paper with the Kennebunk Warning physically on it. My memory is of signing a piece of paper that simply had columns for signatures and email addresses, and perhaps a brief statement calling for impeachment at the top… I personally feel that while the Bush administration is certainly MORALLY capable of orchestrating a 911 false flag attack, and that there are definitely unanswered questions about 911, I have seen no evidence which proves it to me.”
From these statements, we have the following story:
1. The alleged signers did not sign the Kennebunkport warning
2. The alleged signers did not see the “massive evidence” declared in the Kennebunkport Warning
3. The actual document signed involved impeachment
The first and third claims are key, but the Kennebunkport warning states in its third sentence: “we call on the House of Representatives to proceed immediately to the impeachment of Cheney.”
With five individuals claiming that they did not sign the warning, and providing essentially the exact same story that a document involving only impeachment was signed—it is very hard to believe that they are not telling the truth and dismiss their accounts. However, a scanned copy of the signatures eventually emerged providing yet more intrigue and controversy. Admittedly, it is not confirmed at this point that the signatures were taken from another document and put onto the Kennebunkport Warning as the anti-war activists allege. However, the five corroborated statements should not be dismissed easily.
The question becomes, if the signatures on the Kennebunkport Warning are not legitimate as alleged by the anti-war activists, what is its purpose? Is its purpose to discredit future warnings, or even the Kennebunkport Warning itself? Is its purpose to discredit anti-war activists by associating them with controversial 9/11 activists like Jim Fetzer and Judy Wood and their space beams and TV fakery? Is its purpose to create division between 9/11 truth activists and the anti-war movement?
The Kennebunkport warning was not the first of its kind. In fact, many of the principals involved in supporting the Kennebunkport warning had issued previous warnings, press releases, and radio interviews about the subject of another false flag attack in the months before the Kennebunkport controversy. In particular, Scholars for 9/11 Truth issued a press release that claimed “a fake attack on the US” was looming, Webster Tarpley issued a previous warning entitled “Cheney Determined To Strike This Summer”, and Captain May issued several warnings in Portland about a possible nuclear false flag incident. In response to these articles, May was interviewed by both Kevin Barrett and Jim Fetzer on their radio shows multiple times to discuss the possibility of another false flag attack.
Many of those who supported previous warnings dispute the claims of the anti-war activists. Among these are Kevin Barrett according to Captain May and Webster Tarpley, an author of the Warning. Kevin Barrett says that "it is overwhelmingly probable that the people who say they never signed the warning are lying, and that they signed, then had second thoughts and backed out... or, just possibly, did not fully digest what they had signed when they signed it." Laurie Dobson and others claim (or rather, insinuate without evidence) that “it is obvious to me that the big name people are afraid.” This claim does not appear to have merit since no evidence is given to support it, and Cindy Sheehan had appeared several times on Alex Jones’ radio show and elsewhere to discuss her 9/11 questions and support for a new investigation saying that the collapse of the twin towers looked “like a controlled demolition.” In fact, Sheehan even warned of a “distinct possibility” of a US-sponsored false flag attack. She has never retracted these comments due to “fear”. An important distinction here is the difference between “distinct possibility” and “massive evidence” as alleged in the Kennebunkport warning. The other alleged signers all indicated that they supported another 9/11 investigation. These facts seem to suggest that the possibility of retracted signature from the warning due to “fear” is implausible and unlikely.
Craig Hill claims to be one of the real signers of the warning. According to Michael Wolsey on 911blogger, "I just spoke with Craig Hill, treasurer of the Green Party of Vermont who verified that he is indeed a signatory of this document and indicated to me that the document is very real." Chris Emery, who also signed the Kennebunkport warning, requested his name be taken off of the document after witnessing the treatment of the alleged singers by Webster Tarpley and his associates.
Strangely, four of the promoters of the warning have ties to Lyndon LaRouche; a political figure who has been involved in promoting violent actions against activists in the past. Webster Tarpley, one of the main figures in the controversy has a strong connection with LaRouche. Bruce Marshal (one of the originators of the warning), Craig Hill (calling the anti-war activists liars), and Laurie Dobson (claiming to be an “eyewitness” to the signings) are all connected to LaRouche. By coincidence or conspiracy, most of the inflammatory comments and insinuations about “fearful signers” against the anti-war activists are coming from LaRouche associates.
The connection to LaRouche is not the only strange association. Craig Hill says, “the immediate aim of the militarization of space via nuclear weapons and other exotic dangers orbiting Earth, pointing down and controlling entire societies under threat they, too, may suffer that which Dr Judy Wood persuasively suggests occurred in NYC on 9/11.” Warning signers Morgan Stack, Jim Fetzer, Daniel Abrahamson, and Webster Tarpley, and to a lesser extent, Kevin Barrett have also supported the highly dubious theory of directed energy weapons (DEW) on 9/11. It can be observed that few 9/11 Truth activists claim that the WTC towers were destroyed with Space Weapons and the theory appears to be a deliberate ‘guilt by association’ Trojan horse. The theory has been debunked many times and is likely deliberate disinformation. An amusing and embarrassing mp3 excerpt of Judy Wood and Jim Fetzer discussing “beams” from space reveals the credibility of its advocates.
Why promote ideas like directed energy weapons and create controversy over signatures on a document? Discrediting and dividing activist groups is a historical part of FBI CoIntelPro operations and the Kennebunkport Warning Hoax could possibly be another stunning example. The purpose of CoIntelPro is to “divide, confuse, [and] weaken in diverse ways” activist groups. Effective ways of accomplishing this include divisive accusations, personal attacks, and disruptive behavior. A likely previous example was the “controlled demolition” of Scholars for 9/11 truth by Jim Fetzer, who offered his signature to the warning. Fetzer was interviewed by Tarpley shortly after the Warning was submitted to 911blogger and proclaimed, "Scholars stands with you. You may make Scholars for 9/11 Truth a signatory to your Kennebunkport Warning. [...] Keep up the great work! You are a clear, strong voice for truth!” Jim Fetzer then issued a press release entitled "Scholars endorse 'The Kennebunkport Warning': Report ominous signs of a privatized takeover of the nation."
After the controversy of faked signatures emerged, Webster Tarpley, the supplier of the “massive evidence” outrageously asserted:
"Some of the signers, under the obvious threats of totalitarian forces, are lying in appalling fashion about what they signed and if they signed. You can see for yourself from the facsimile who signed. We need to move beyond these wretched individuals.[sic]"
Why would Tarpley attack Cindy Sheehan and others in this manner? Why his association with Jim Fetzer, (who has a history of disinformation and divisive behavior) so soon after this controversy erupted? Why do Tarpley and three others have connections to LaRouche? Similarly, Mr. Craig Hill (who referenced Judy Wood and Space Weapons) has also attacked Cindy Sheehan and the anti-war activists suggesting that this could be a deliberate CoIntelPro style attempt to divide the peace and 9/11 truth movements. While it may simply be dismissed as bad behavior, it is also a typical divide and conquer strategy of CoIntelPro to create division within activist groups through (false) accusations and allegations. In contrast, Cindy Sheehan and others have refrained from attacking the originators of the warning and have showed support for 9/11 investigations. In my view, this is very strong evidence that we should take their claims seriously.
Soon after voicing our support for the anti-war activists, Webster Tarpley prolifically accused Kennebunkport warning investigators of “CoIntelPro”, “disinformation”, among other accusations and insults.
In Summary:
On the one hand, five of the alleged signers of the warning:
· Claim they did not sign the Kennebunk Warning
· Say they did sign another document
· Independently claim the document signed involved impeachment
· Support 9/11 questions and another investigation
· Have not attacked the authors of this document
On the other side we have:
· Multiple accusations of "liar", personal attacks, divisive and inflammatory language (i.e. “wretched individuals”, etc), and unproven speculations about "fearful signers"
· No apologies for these accusations and ad-hominems
· Direct support for the highly dubious directed energy weapons (Fetzer, Tarpley, Craig Hill (citing Judy Wood), Daniel Abrahamson and Morgan Stack have all supported this theory in some form).
· Four individuals who appear to be associated with Lyndon Larouche
· No indications that the signatures will be removed from the warning. (update: now the names have an asterisk)
· Collective support for “next 9/11” warnings, with many involved in issuing previous warnings to the Kennebunkport controversy.
· Signatures shown on the warning (it is disputed that the document was signed by the anti-war activists)
Thanks to the good work of 911blogger Col. Jenny Sparks, other signers were contacted to provide more facts in this swirling controversy.
I would like to emphasize that while the truth of this matter has not yet been determined, the main issue is that of divisiveness against the anti-war activists.
For more links go to:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/08/kennebunkport-warning-hoax-controversy.html
