In the week since the Kennebunkport Warning was signed, most of the discussion has concerned the controversy over who signed or did not sign it.Let's look at the text again. I've taken the liberty of inserting some space:
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.Much hinges on the first two words. What is meant by "Massive evidence"? Webster Tarpley, author (or co-author) of the Kennebunkport Warning, claimed he would provide evidence and there's a post at 911Blogger in which he is quoted as saying:
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.
I am enclosing my July 21, 2007 summary entitled "Cheney Determined to Strike in US with WMD this Summer," plus a portfolio of selected news stories covering July and August of 2007. (both items attached below)For whatever reason, there doesn't seem to be an attachment on this post, let alone two. Nor have I been able to find any other version of this message which provides the promised evidence.
Here's a mirror of Tarpley's article, "Cheney Determined to Strike in US with WMD this Summer".
I have not been able to find any "portfolio of selected news stories" as promised by Tarpley but I can provide another link. Here's a mirror of the article he mentioned: "Study: US preparing 'massive' military attack against Iran" (from Raw Story, original here).
In a comment at 911Blogger, Arabesque offers help:
If Tarpley wants more evidence he can use my research...The page linked by Arabesque (and the links provided in it) contain massive evidence of exactly the sort Tarpley mentioned. (Here is a mirror of that page.)
I will link to Tarpley's "portfolio of selected news articles" if I ever find it. But in the meantime please consider the following excerpts from Arabesque's "The Next 9/11? Predictions, Propaganda, Motive, and After the Attack":
“The whole mystique of intelligence is that you acquire this… very valuable information covertly… if truth be told, about 80%—eight, zero—of any of the information that one needs is available in open source materials.”[1] Ray McGovern, 27-year CIA analyst in the film 9/11: Press for Truthand so on... The evidence is indeed massive. But it's evidence of what?
...
“The July 17 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)… [is] a tour de force of misinformation disguised as fact… It is possibly no coincidence that there has been a significant increase in the anti-Iran rhetoric emanating from both the Bush administration and Congress over the past few weeks, mostly seeking to establish a casus belli by contending that Iran is masterminding lethal attacks against US troops in Iran and NATO forces in Afghanistan.”[13] Philip Giraldi, July 19, 2007
...
Keith Olbermann has detailed many fake terror warnings that have occurred and have been exploited to create fear in the Main Stream Media since 9/11.[14]
“I predict, based primarily on information that is floating in Europe and the Middle East, that an event is imminent and around the corner here in the United States. It could happen as soon as tomorrow, or it could happen in the next few months. Ninety days at the most.”[15] Fox News, July 13, 2005
“I predict, based primarily on information that is floating in Europe and the Middle East, that an event is imminent and around the corner here in the United States. It could happen as soon as tomorrow, or it could happen in the next few months. Ninety days at the most.”[16] Fox News “August 2, 2007”
“In an attempt to reverse plummeting approval ratings, the Bush administration is mounting an unprecedented, sustained campaign of disinformation on the terrorist threat confronting the United States. Even the mainstream media has noted how the White House has attempted falsely to tie al-Qaeda to the war in Iraq, with President Bush increasing the number of references to the group in speeches made during the month of July.”[17] Philip Giraldi, July 31, 2007
“Not a day goes by without suggestions by Bush or top Homeland Security officials that an attack perhaps on the scale of 9/11, or worse, is being prepared. As always, the mass media dutifully report such claims as authoritative, without questioning the lack of evidence beyond the bald assertions of intelligence and other government officials… The terror scare serves three basic political functions: to divert public attention from the disaster in Iraq and the social crisis within the US, to justify a foreign policy based on militarism and war, and to provide a pretext for police state measures at home.”[18] Jerry White, July 27, 2007
...
"The greatest threat now is 'a 9/11' occurring with a group of terrorists armed not with airline tickets and box cutters, but with a nuclear weapon in the middle of one of our own cities… it’s a very real threat."[26] Dick Cheney, April 15, 2007
“A secret U.S. law enforcement report, prepared for the Department of Homeland Security, warns that al Qaeda is planning a terror "spectacular" this summer, according to a senior official with access to the document. ‘This is reminiscent of the warnings and intelligence we were getting in the summer of 2001,’ the official told ABCNews.com.”[27] ABC News, July 1, 2007
“Officials in Germany have publicly warned that [America] could face a major attack this summer, also comparing the situation to the pre-9/11 summer of 2001.”[28] ABC News, July 1, 2007
“I believe we are entering a period this summer of increased risk… Summertime [2007] seems to be appealing to them."[29] Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff, July 11, 2001
"I believe there are cells in the United States, or at least people who aspire to create cells in the United States. To assume that there are not those cells is naive and so we have to take that threat seriously. Am I concerned that this will happen this summer, I have to be concerned that it could happen any day." Air Force Gen. Victor "Gene"[30] Renuart, July 24, 2007
“Al Qaeda terrorists are continuing to plan attacks against the United States and are seeking nuclear and other unconventional arms for the strikes, a senior Pentagon official told Congress yesterday… ‘Al Qaeda has and will continue to attempt visually dramatic mass-casualty attacks here at home, and they will continue to attempt to acquire chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear materials.’”[31] The Washington Times, July 26, 2007
“Capitol Police officials have stepped up the department’s security presence on Capitol Hill in response to intelligence indicating the increased possibility of an al-Qaida terrorist attack on Congress sometime between now and Sept. 11.”[32] Roll Call, August 2, 2007
“Two congressional representatives were meeting with Capitol Hill security officials Friday as workers dealt with an increased security presence related to unspecified al-Qaida threats as the sixth anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks approaches. The fears were stoked Thursday when Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott said it would be a good thing for congress to leave town until September 12.”[33] ABC News, August 3, 2007
“Colorado Republican Tom Tancredo [said] the best way he could think of to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. would be to threaten to retaliate by bombing the holiest Islamic sites of Mecca and Medina. Tancredo told about 30 people at a town hall meeting in Iowa on Tuesday that he believes a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. could be imminent and that the U.S. needs to hurry up and think of a way to stop it.”[34] CBS News, August 3, 2007
“Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey tells NewsMax in an exclusive interview that terrorists could strike the American homeland — possibly with a weapon of mass destruction — this summer or early fall. He also warns that if Iran fails to comply with international efforts to stop its nuclear weapons program, the U.S. will have no other option than to bomb it. ‘I think the threat of a serious attack in the next few months is very real,’ Woolsey said. A terrorist strike with a dirty bomb or with biological weapons was ‘a real possibility.’”[35] NewsMax, August 7, 2007
...
“The Bush administration continues to bypass standard intelligence channels and use what some believe to be propaganda tactics to create a compelling case for war with Iran, US foreign policy experts and former US intelligence officials tell RAW STORY.”[64] Raw Story, August 18, 2006
“The Bush administration has confirmed that it contemplates the possible use tactical bunker buster nuclear bombs to ‘take out’ Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons' facilities. An operational plan to wage aerial attacks on Iran has been in "a state of readiness" since June 2005. Essential military hardware to wage this operation has been deployed.”[65] Michel Chossudovsky, June 2007
“The Democrats certainly don’t contest Bush’s Middle East foreign policy, they embrace it. Just last week the Senate voted 97-0 in favor of moving toward war with Iran… The Democrats don’t really want to end the war despite their veneer of opposition. If they did they would have halted its funding long ago. Likewise, if they really preferred to challenge the Bush falsehoods regarding Iran, they would do so. Instead the Democrats, including their top presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who voted in favor of holding Iran accountable for the killing of US soldiers, seem to want to handle Iran militarily.”[66] Dissident Voice, July 19, 2007
...
“One recalls that it was in August 1964, after the Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater, that the Tonkin Gulf incident occurred… As Congress prepares for its August recess, the probability of U.S. air strikes on Iran rises with each week. A third carrier, the USS Enterprise, and its battle group is joining the Nimitz and Stennis in the largest concentration of U.S. naval power ever off the coast of Iran.”[70] Pat Buchanan, July 16, 2007
“The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned. The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: ‘Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo.’”[71] The Guardian, July 16, 2007.
“It is appalling, if unsurprising, to read the neoconservative cheerleader Oliver Kamm arguing… the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against Iran… The ultimate irony is that the leading violator of the treaty, the US, and the region's sole nuclear power and non-signatory, Israel, are contemplating nuclear strikes on the pretext of nuclear limitation.”[72] The Guardian, August 7, 2007
“Some hawks within the administration — including Cheney — are said to have favored military strikes [against Iran].”[73] McClatchy Newspapers, August 9, 2007
...
“If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.”[94] The National Security Advisor to former President Carter Zbigniew Brzezinski, February 1, 2007
"I definitely think that is a distinct possibility, that there will be some kind of attack whether it's manufactured or real… I think it's really possible that these people will do that—why would he [Bush] put in that presidential directive if he didn't need to use it—I think it's really really frightening. Does anybody think that [Bush's] recent presidential decision directive wasn't for declaring martial law and suspending elections—that's why they have to be stopped. The culture of corruption doesn't stop at the Republican party and people need to realize that Democrats are not our saviors."[95] Anti-War Activist Cindy Sheehan, July 12, 2007
“The talk of a troop surge and jobs program in Iraq only distracts Americans from the very real possibility of an attack on Iran. Our growing naval presence in the region and our harsh rhetoric toward Iran are unsettling… Rumors are flying about when, not if, Iran will be bombed by either Israel or the U.S.—possibly with nuclear weapons. I am concerned… that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran.”[96] 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul, January 11, 2007.
“The government of the United States sees and hears all, with or without legal authority. They can prevent any attack on their people, unless there is some imperial need to deliver a bang so that they can carry on with and justify the brutal war which has been declared against the culture, religion, economy and independence of other peoples.”[97] Fidel Castro, July 15, 2007
“Bush has put in place all the necessary measures for dictatorship in the form of "executive orders" that are triggered whenever Bush declares a national emergency. Recent statements by Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff, former Republican senator Rick Santorum and others suggest that Americans might expect a series of staged, or false flag, "terrorist" events in the near future… Throughout its existence the US government has staged incidents that the government then used in behalf of purposes that it could not otherwise have pursued… False flag operations are a commonplace tool of governments.”[98] Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration Paul Craig Roberts, July 17, 2007
“Today, we see the signs of two parties operating as two pockets of the same pair of political pants, walking all over the constitution and the will of the American people. We don’t have much time left. A staged ‘terrorist’ attack on this nation just prior to the election would create an immediate condition of martial law.”[99] Mike Green, August 2, 2007
“They still need a trigger [to attack Iran] and I would not be surprised if we will see some event in Iraq which implicates the Iranians. They need a pretext.”[100] Raw Story, August 24, 2007
“The War Party is thus seeking an excuse to launch air strikes on Iran, as that would trigger Iranian counterstrikes on our forces. Then they will have their long-sought casus belli for U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities… If there is a rush to war here, it is not on the part of Iran. As Bush is preparing for war on Iran, if he has not already decided on war, where is Congress, which alone has the constitutional power to authorize a war?”[101] Patrick J. Buchanan, August 28, 2007
The Kennebunkport Warning says:
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.Is this really what the massive evidence shows? I know some people who would be convinced by half as much evidence, or a quarter, or less. And I know others who wouldn't be convinced by ten times this much evidence, or a hundred times, or a thousand.
The split runs along almost the same fault line that divides the dissident "community" into two camps, which I sometimes call "conspiracy theorists" and "paranoid lunatics". Both names are meant in jest but they also contain grains of truth.
A "conspiracy theorist" proper is one who advances a particular theory pertaining to a conspiracy. But that's not how the term is used in most of the time nowadays. Here I adopt (or lampoon) the modern (wingnut) usage of "conspiracy theorist" meaning anyone who doubts the official narrative of 9/11.
A "paranoid lunatic" in this context means a dissident activist who wants to protect his or her "credibility" by avoiding any association with "conspiracy theorists". In my view these people are "lunatics" because they think the mainstream media is going to grant them "credibility" any day now, and "paranoid" because they think their pending "credibility" will be jeopardized if they are caught associating with "conspiracy theorists".
In general, paranoid lunatics think conspiracy theorists are gullible. They are right in some instances but for the most part they are quite wrong. People question the official story of 9/11 not because they're gullible but because they're skeptical. And conspiracy theorists tend to be skeptical of the paranoid lunatics because they don't seem bright enough to see what's in front of their noses -- or honest enough to say what they see.
My point here is not to slam anyone but to try to explain why there is such a gap between paranoid lunatics and conspiracy theorists. According to the liberal philosophy of "live and let live", it shouldn't matter, except that it does. All dissident groups need the strength of numbers and should be working together.
It appears that the Kennebunkport Warning Mystery is the result of a botched attempt to unify the paranoid lunatics and the conspiracy theorists. For whatever reasons (and apparently there were many), it seems to have made matters worse instead of better.
We don't have time for this anymore. We never did.