"Most of the comments concerning the Kennebunkport Warning have avoided the main issue."

Blatant evasion. The main issue is the fact that non-9/11 activists are being attacked as "liars" and "wretched individuals". The main issue is that they are being ATTACKED. PERIOD.

"Adults Are Responsible For What They Sign"

Adults are responsible for what they say.

"If you choose that cop-out, what kind of a peace leader are you?"

What kind of 9/11 truth "leader" attacks non-9/11 truth activists as "liars" and "wretched individuals", and writes divisive articles such as this?

"They knew exactly what they were signing and, if they deny it, they are unfortunately lying. Anyone who talks of forgery or trickery in gathering these signatures is compounding that lying with slander."

No less than FIVE individuals not only denied signing this document, the are claiming that they signed another document involving impeachment. Webster Tarpley has quite a conspiracy theory here: not only did these signers claim they didn't sign the document, they had the exact same story about what they DID sign. Think about that for a minute. So, you are saying that they decided to join together, deny signing, and then come up with the exact same story? That's quite the conspiracy theory.

"We cannot avoid the delicate question of cointelpro, the domestic sabotage and wrecking activities of the intelligence agencies."

Agreed. The purpose of cointelpro is to "divide, confuse, [and] weaken in diverse ways" activist groups.

Where is the civility? Where are the apologies? Where is any attempt to simply label this a misunderstanding, or give people the benefit of the doubt? Where are the calls for unity? It's not coming from Webster Tarpley.

Who is trying to bring the peace movement together with the 9/11 truth movement and who is trying to divide them? Frankly, it does matter.

I'll be the first to admit I can't prove that the signatures were faked. But if you are going to ask me who I believe--I'll take those who don't hurl accusations and insults and who support the truth movement over those who are divisive and insulting any day.

The Kennebunkport Warning: Hoax?
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/08/kennebunkport-warning-hoax-cont...
Space Beams, Incivility, Accusations, and CoIntelPro Style Division Tactics

This article is a disgrace.

I haven't seen enough evidence to make a judgment either way on this one. On the one hand, Webster and company did not handle the dispute artfully (see "wretched individuals", etc), but on the other hand, I find it entirely plausible that the signatories signed something they didn't read too closely. I don't buy your argument that each of the 5 individuals independently came up with the same story. I think the similarities in their stories can perhaps be a result of the following: one person actually read what they signed, saw that it was popping up on dubious websites that they didn't agree with, and came forth with the "I didn't read it carefully before I signed it" excuse (which, as I said, may be perfectly valid). Others were notified of the issue and the controversy via email, and for any number of reasons (including the valid "I didn't read it carefully" excuse) did not want to be associated with the document or the controversy, and thought the first person's excuse was a good one, and used that. No back room deals or conspiracy, just groupthink.

Were the promoters of this document right to call the 5 that denied signing it "liars"? Technically, maybe, we just don't know for sure. Politically, though, absolutely not. Like I said, it should have and could have been handled better.

The only thing that bothers me about this whole thing is the association of several promoters of it with the thoroughly discredited space beam, mini nuke, no planes people. I'm pretty sure I've heard Webster backpedal away from the high-tech energy weapon idea, but I haven't heard such a renouncement from the others. I think it is safe to say that promoters of space beams/mini nuke/no planes are, at this point, guilty of being an intentional disruptor until proven innocent (unless they are truly insane, in which case I feel sorry for them).

Thank you for your reasoned comments. You do make a point here about the signatures. But it is still very fishy. However, This is not the main issue--the main issue is the personal attacks. That's what I have a problem with.

I don't want to jump to conclusions about what did and did not happen. There is no reason for personal attacks.

The actual signing of the document itself may also have been the result of groupthink. Maybe everyone saw Cindy Sheehan or one of the other prominent anti-war people signing it and everyone thought "Hey, Cindy [or other individual] is signing it, I agree with her on most issues, so I'll sign it too." Again, this could have happened without anyone involved reading it very carefully. There are any number of plausible scenarios that don't involve fraudulent document alteration.

But, I wholeheartedly agree with you about the personal attacks. That is totally uncalled for, especially from a political perspective. Anything Jim Fetzer is associated with is automatically suspect.

Fetzer signed it.

He is one of 4 DEW supporters

Defending Fetzer makes you extremely suspect as well, FYI.

PS the Truth movement has dumped Fetzer - he is hanging on like a psycho Ex-girlfriend.

Fetzer is NO FRIEND to the 9/11 Truth Movement. He's not fooling anyone.
--
11/11 Never Forget - Fetzer Flips
Zeitgeist Movie Torrent DVDRip (XviD)

Can we take out a restraining order ? ;-)
______________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

I can not prove the signatures were faked, and nor do I say that I have proven that in my blog.

I can only state the (incomplete) facts as they are and give you my opinion based on them so far.

Again, the point is NOT the signatures, it is the divisiveness, which is continued in this article.

Quote: "I find it entirely plausible that the signatories signed something they didn't read too closely."

I have NEVER met anyone in my life (who wasn't an idiot and/or extremely young and/or naive) who, when asked to sign right here on the dotted line, didn't take an attitude of, "Whoa. Wait a second. Now, what exactly am I signing here? Let me read this first."

That is such a standard attitude and reaction that people have when asked to sign something that any other reaction is usually a surprise.

I think you are WAY off base here. And too much of an anti-apologist, if you will.

----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

http://www.chico911truth.org/

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I doubt very seriously that everyone you have ever met who is an intelligent, relatively self aware person has NEVER signed something without reading through it in great detail. The amount of care people take in signing something varies proportionally with how much the document in question will affect their lives. For example, binding contracts are likely to be read very carefully by those who are contemplating signing them. On the other end of the spectrum is something like a petition. I know I have signed petitions to Congress in the past without reading them in exacting detail. Mostly it's because my signature is essentially meaningless (I don't have a very high opinion of petitions) but at the same time my signature takes little effort and is a somewhat symbolic demonstration that I stand with the other people that are signatories.

I would say the KW document is far closer to a petition than a binding contract. And, as I said, I find it entirely plausible that the signatories simply didn't pay it much thought. Maybe some of them saw a prominent anti-war person signing and said "Hey, Cindy [or other] is signing it, I stand with her, so I'm signing it too." Again, I'm not saying they didn't read it at all, I'm just saying that it is plausible that they just glanced over it, saw the word "impeachment" and something about war with Iran, and signed it.

I'm not apologizing or anti-apologizing for anyone. I'm just calling it like I see it. Of course the document could have been altered. All I'm saying is that I don't see enough evidence in either direction to say definitively what happened.

----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

http://www.chico911truth.org/

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

Learn from it... and do it better next time.

Had NOTHING to do with it. If whomever caused the problems with this Warning to begin with was looking for a distraction to take the focus off of the activism we should be doing this time of year, and all throughout the year, they certainly have succeeded. I don't understand why it's getting so much play on 911blogger.com. Yes, the shit is hitting the fan, yes, it appears that something might be in the works, etc... etc... etc... I don't need a signed piece of paper to tell me that.

"To whom it may concern. We regret the fact that you dispute signing this document, however, we do not appreciate the accusation that it was somehow switched in some way. To ensure the credibility of the warning, we are going to remove your names from the list of signatures. We are sorry for any misunderstanding, and hope that we can work together in the future towards a better world."

How hard would that have been? Why couldn't they have just removed the signatures, and moved on? Why the need to make "wretched individual" accusations, and drag out this controversy for as long as possible?

The 'shit hitting the fan' scenario was obvious long before Tarpley's Warning appeared. I, too, wish this distraction would 'go away'. But it isn't going to go away if Tarpley, et. al., do not consent to the five's wishes and remove their names. My understanding (limited as it is) is that Tarpley will promulagate it regardless. And that will hurt the movement even further. Better that they should simply toss it.

Perhaps others, with more savvy about such stuff than I, can come up with an alternate way to minimize the impact of this debacle upon the activism we need to promote, foster and implement right now. The only people I can think of who could do this effectively and immediately are in the KW group. That is, remove the names, apologize for the crap they've said, and move on. The relationship between 9/11 truth and the peace folks is simply too important not to make some effort to facilitate its healing.

But in a very small way to help let the brouhaha die its death, I won't comment on it further.

*on edit: sorry, Jon. I hadn't seen the second part of your post before writing this.

==================================================================
"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." (Goethe)

It is from:
www.actindependent.org

with cosmos

Unlike some, I can't spend ALL me time lurking on-line. Got other things to do.

But if I'm on-line, I aim to be useful. Like this:
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5813#5813

"Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 14:22:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Jenny Sparks"
Subject: Our apologies from the 9/11 Truth Movement
To: "Dahlia Wasfi" , "Cindy Sheehan" , "Ann Wright"
CC: kris4143@xxxx

Hello all!

On behalf of the 9/11 Truth Movement, allow me to
apologize for the shabby public treatment you and your
lot in the peace movement are receiving from the likes
of Bruce Marshall and those who support his tactics.

As 9/11 activists one of our foremost goals is
exposing the history of false-flag operations, like
the Reichstag Fire and Operation Gladio, that are used
by the rich and powerful to manipulate populations
into accepting wars of profit. As such, we value our
alliances with the anti-war movement and it is
inexcusable that, even if this has been an innocent
gaff or misunderstanding, for anyone to label you as
liars because you honestly recall something different.

I understand and respect that many of you do not agree
that the attacks of 9/11 were a false flag event. It's
not a pleasant prospect and being faced with the
possibility that the situation is that intrinsically
corrupt is overwhelming.

And nonetheless you have given us, in 9/11 Truth, kind
words of support, whilst clarifying you did NOT sign
this Kennebunkport Warning as it is written. For that
we are grateful and will continue to work to build
alliances with and support the anti-war movement,
disruption be damned.

As has been said here:

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5799#5799

"Forgive me if I take the word of Cindy Sheehan over a
bunch of space-beam LaRouchies who think Gandhi and
MLK had low self-steem. Yes, it's theoretically
possible that all five women are lying or backtracking
or what have you -- and I will gladly reverse my
suspicions if evidence arises proving as much -- but I
somehow doubt that will happen. Even if it does, you
might say that the damage has already been done.

The Bunkport crowd has behaved atrociously. Even now
they refuse to withdraw their (poorly) worded warning.
Instead they appear to be trying to aggravate the
situation by labeling Cindy Sheehan a "wretched liar".
I'm sorry, but even if their contention of what
occurred is entirely correct, their behavior in the
aftermath of the scandal has been even worse than the
original allegation. "

Again, we are so sorry you have been dragged into, and
subjected to, this rubbish. Be assured that 9/11
Truth is full of progressive people who want to work
for our common goals. And we will do everything in
our power(such as it is) to get to the bottom of this
business.

Thanks again for your help in trying to sort this
rubbish. Together we can stop wars--FOREVER.

And that's what scares those in high places--that's
why they want to drive a wedge between us.

So let's not let that happen, eh? ;-)

Cheers,

Jenny

"Col.Jenny Sparks" of 9/11 Blogger"

Much like in 9/11 activism, this will only go away when we get some bleeding answers.

And Marshall et al, apologize for calling our allies "wretched liars". >:(

_____________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

I saw it--the flicker of numbers going up and down. Lot of effort you lot are wasting. Not as clever as you think you are... ;-)
____________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.