Echoes of Kennebunkport

"The Kennebunkport Warning"

Welcome to the Table of Contents for my coverage of the "Kennebunkport Warning" Fiasco, which transpired in 2007.

Prelude: August 13, 2007:
Throw Up And Go To Sleep: Why There Are No Paranoid Lunatic Conspiracy Theorists

Chapter 1: August 31, 2007:
Kennebunkport Warning: Hoax Shreds 'Credibility' Of Hoaxers -- But Who Are The Hoaxers?

Chapter 2: September 2, 2007:
Dissident Dissent: Paranoid Lunatics Vs. Conspiracy Theorists, Again!

Chapter 3: September 3, 2007:
Cheney Doesn't Need To Attack In USA With WMD This Summer

Chapter 4: September 4, 2007:
The Kennebunkport Train Wreck: Leadership? What Leadership?

Chapter 5: September 22, 2007:
Anyone Who Ever Had A Heart: The Kennebunkport Warning Revisited

Chapter 6: September 26, 2007:
Over The Top: The March Of The Berlet Brigade

Laurie Dobson

Chapter 7: October 12, 2007:
I Like Laurie: Dobson For Senate In Maine

Chapter 8: October 28, 2007:
The Height Of Hypocrisy? Or Maybe Not Yet??

Chapter 9: December 12, 2007:
Laurie Dobson: 'We Must Not Shirk Our Responsibility'

There is no other place or time ... It is in us and it is we who must do this and the time is now.

Some Fishin' Accomplished: Life Sentences For Three Convicted "Liquid Bombers"

Tanvir Hussain

Tanvir Hussain, Assad Sarwar and Abdulla Ahmed Ali, the three so-called "liquid bombers" whom the British criminal justice system managed to convict on September 7, 2009, were sentenced to life a week later, with no chance of parole for 32, 36 and 40 years, respectively.

Only the least skeptical among us could fail to note the coincidence by which the convictions and sentences were both handed down within a few days of the eighth anniversary of the "terror attacks" that the "transatlantic airline bombing plot" was said to rival.

Immediately after the convictions were announced, the tone of the story shifted in an entirely predictable and globally uniform manner. Which is to say that the convictions and sentences have moved the story of the "liquid bombers" from the realm of bizarre terrorist fiction to the nearby realm of bizarre officially sanctioned government propaganda terrorist fiction.

A cynical observer could be forgiven for assuming that this long-awaited transition would be sufficient to bring this astonishingly odd story to a close. But such does not appear to be the case.

A Hole Too Deep

As my regular readers both know, I've been reading (and commenting on) a three-part series called "The Twenty Year Shadow of 9/11", which has been published by CovertAction Magazine.

The series, by Ben Howard, Aaron Good and Peter Dale Scott, began with two installments which appear to have been written by all three authors working together, and ended with a three-part conclusion which was certainly written by the three authors separately. And that's why we have three different conclusions to assess.

This post examines the second conclusion in the third installment of the series. It's called "Cutting Through the Parapolitical Fog of 9/11" and it was written by Aaron Good. CovertAction says:

Aaron Good is Editor at Large for CovertAction Magazine.

His revised doctoral dissertation, American Exception: Empire and the Deep State, is to be published by Skyhorse in the spring of 2022.

You can follow Aaron on Twitter: @Aaron_Good_

The first conclusion, by Ben Howard, set the bar. Will the second conclusion will reach it? or surpass it? No other result seems possible.

One Out Of Three Ain't Good

The third installment of "The Twenty Year Shadow of 9/11", a three-part series by Ben Howard, Aaron Good, and Peter Dale Scott, has been posted at CovertAction Magazine, and it starts with a note from the editors:

[Because this series has been the result of a collaboration among three writers with extensive knowledge about 9/11, U.S. hegemony, and the commonly suppressed aspects of our system of governance, our authors decided to take a different approach with Part 3. Rather than present one consensus conclusion, they present here three separate concluding sections—one from each author. We hope this format takes full advantage of the unique perspectives that each have to offer.]

The series started out well, and I praised the first installment without any reservations. The second installment turned out to be surprisingly dismal, to be blunt, and it raised the question, "What's going on here?"

Now we have the answer.