"The Important Thing is, Not to Stop Questioning" – Albert Einstein
Welcome to MUJCA-NET
The Kennebunkport Warning
The Republic is on its last legs, the war crimes are accelerating...we don’t have time for trivial disputes.
Foreshadows of "The Kennebunkport Warning"
By Captain Eric H. May
The Kennebunkport Warning is short and strident at 200 words. It has been posted widely on the Internet, and in last week's edition of The Lone Star Iconoclast. http://www.lonestaricon.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=1801&z=169 Since then, though, it has come under sustained fire from a swiftboat attack aimed at its authors and signers, and even its word choices. Every aspect of the document has been called into question -- except its content.
It warns that soon the Bush administration may stage another 911 at home, or a Gulf of Tonkin incident abroad, to justify domestic dictatorship and a war on Iran.
One of the document signers, Webster Tarpley, published "Cheney determined to strike US with WMD this summer" on July 21, and it contains most of the evidence upon which The Kennebunkport Warning is based. I agreed with Tarpley. On July 22, a day later, my own "Next 9/11, Summer 2007?" was published, and made the same argument.
I'd like to say that we were the first to develop the thesis of a soon-to-come false flag attack followed by dictatorship and world war, but we weren't. I can name at least four prominent Americans who beat us to it:
Texas Congressman Ron Paul was quite direct in his January 11 speech to the US House of Representatives: "I am concerned," he said, "that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran." For years Paul has been saying that post-9/11 contrivances such as the Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Agency and the US Northern Command, if not abolished, will result in our loss of civil liberties and the establishment of a US dictatorship.
Colonel Ann Wright, a former diplomat and retired Army Reserve officer, gave an April 16 speech at Brown University. In it she decried the massive buildup of US naval forces in the Persian Gulf. "There will be a war there," she said, adding "the United States will cook up something and say 'the Iranians did this to us, so we've got to retaliate.'"
Cindy Sheehan, the peace mom and congressional candidate, also sounded the alarm. In his July 12 article, "Sheehan: Distinct Chance Of Staged Attack, Martial Law", Paul Joseph Watson quoted Sheehan's remarks from The Alex Jones Show:
"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."
She was referring to National Security Presidential Directive 51, signed into effect May 9, by which Bush can assume control of all federal, state and local government in the aftermath of a natural disaster or mass-casualty terror attack.
Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio, in an interview published by The Oregonian July 20, complained that the White House had refused his request to see the secret details of NSPD 51. "Maybe the people who think there's a conspiracy out there are right," he said. DeFazio, a House Homeland Security Committee member, later joined with Committee Chairman Bernie Thompson to co-author a letter requesting permission to read the whole directive. The White House refused again. The congressman noted that this was the first time in 20 years he had been refused access to an official document.
So Ron Paul, Ann Wright, Cindy Sheehan and Peter DeFazio deserve full credit for preceding Webster Tarpley and me in making the points used in The Kennebunkport Warning. No doubt each of them has come under attack for his or her courageous words, but steadfastness in adversity is what defines character.
End note: 911 Blogger has posted a photo of the original document, with signatures: http://www.911blogger.com/files/001-close-up.jpg
# # #
Captain May is a former Army military intelligence and public affairs officer, as well as a former NBC editorial writer. His political and military analyses have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the Houston Chronicle and Military Intelligence Magazine.
THE KENNEBUNKPORT WARNING:
THE DANGER OF WORLD WAR III IS THE MUCH-NEGLECTED HEART OF THE MATTER
Most of the comments concerning the Kennebunkport Warning have avoided the main issue. The central point has nothing to do with any signatures or absence thereof. The key issue is whether the world strategic picture given by the Kennebunkport Warning is accurate or not. If the statement is true, as we firmly assert that it is, then the other issues can be seen in proper perspective, meaning that they are dwarfed by the threat of a world catastrophe. If Cheney really is pressing for a new false flag terror provocation, to be followed by a nuclear attack on Iran and martial law in the US, then that fact certainly ought to command the attention of all thinking people. To duck such an issue would be despicable. Nobody with the vaguest notion of what is happening in the world can doubt that Cheney is doing this – it is written in the newspapers, it is written in the graffiti on the walls. At this point it becomes our duty to mobilize to the limit of our capacity to ward off such an immense evil. All the other questions are trivial by comparison. And you cannot be an antiwar leader and be an agnostic about this, claiming you simply do not know or that you do not understand the concept of false flag. If you choose that cop-out, what kind of a peace leader are you?
THE FEAR FACTOR
Naturally, the world described by the Kennebunkport Warning is a terrifying world. But our chances of survival will be better if we are able to face reality, rather than retreat into a dream-world of opinions, perceptions, and recriminations. This applies especially to those who claim to be antiwar leaders.
Reality is that the signers signed – the irrefutable, photographic, courtroom quality documentary proof is posted on the internet. In the light of this overwhelming evidence, it is understandable that most of the signers are reluctant to issue a flat denial that they ever signed. Rather, their denials are oblique and ambiguous doubletalk.
ADULTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT THEY SIGN
On the question of signing: under US law, if you are 21 years old and can read and write, if you put your name to something you are bound by it. If you sign it, you must accept the consequences. Your signature is your bond – ask anyone who has signed an adjustable rate mortgage lately. The only way you can get out of this is to prove that you are mentally defective, and nobody has tried that, so far.
Most of us were told by our parents that we should never sign anything unless we had read it carefully and considered it from every possible point of view. That is a very good maxim. We must assume that capable political leaders dealing with the life and death questions of war, peace, and martial law will pay close attention to anything that they are asked to sign. And the signers are serious political leaders who know what they are doing, are they not? Such people know very well that they must take responsibility for their own signatures –don’t they? Surely they cannot be in the habit of signing things without reading them. Considerations of this type lead us to us to the most embarrassing doubts about their competence and seriousness.
It is also worth noting that verbal contracts are valid in almost all states, as long as they cover the main points at issue -- such as a commitment to sign a statement in token of political support. Anyone who recalls the Texaco-Pennzoil case, when the fate of about ten billion dollars was sealed by a verbal contract knows this. It would be foolhardy for people in politics and government to ignore such matters.
Anyone who has ever organized support for a statement knows how such a process works. You get a bunch of copies of the statement. You go to a gathering and hand out the copies. You buttonhole influential people and urge them to read the statement, evaluate it, and then sign it. Anyone who signs something under such circumstances knows that as mature adults they must take responsibility for their own signature. The organizer cannot subject the signers to hours of psychiatric depth analysis to determine their mental state, or to establish whether they have fully grasped each detail of the statement. There is no way to bring a notary along. They are professional politicians, are they not? One or two are or have been candidates for important federal offices. Surely in their official capacities they plan to read things before they sign them, since they are sure to be held responsible. Otherwise, they will be a laughingstock. 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.
The Kennebunkport Warning is a statement of about a dozen lines. Any normal person can read it and grasp the main points in less than a minute. Nobody can be rushed or stampeded into signing something like this, because it is so brief. It is not an appropriations bill of 1,000 pages.
We cannot avoid the delicate question of cointelpro, the domestic sabotage and wrecking activities of the intelligence agencies. A current news item relates that the FBI spied on Coretta Scott King after the assassination of Martin Luther King. The reason was that J. Edgar Hoover feared that Mrs. King might continue her late husband’s efforts to unite the anti-Vietnam War movement with the civil rights movement. The Kennebunkport Warning attempts to do something similar: its entire logic is to unite the peace, impeachment, and anti-globalization and other movements on a platform which would be independent of the Democratic and Republican Parties, which would no longer be crippled by a single-issue focus, and which would acquire the decisive power of 9/11 truth. The intelligence community of our time is well aware of the vast potential that would be unleashed by such a convergence. This is the eventuality they are intent on preventing. So nobody should be surprised to see counter-organizing in general, or to see the individual signers of such a statement quickly leaned on, squeezed, intimidated, threatened, or otherwise counter-organized. How could it be otherwise? Under Reagan’s Executive Order 12333, many of the functions of the Cold War intelligence community were privatized into fronts and especially into foundations. Many foundations must thus be considered as tentacles of the intelligence community. The role of foundations in funding the peace movement and some of its leading activists is an immense factor of impotence and corruption. One such leader has commented: “I can’t say anything about 9/11 – I might lose my funding!” Well, the Kennebunkport Warning does talk about 9/11, and that may be the rub.
IS CHENEY PRESSING FOR A WIDER WAR VIA FALSE FLAG OPS, OR NOT?
This brings us back to the issue of whether the Kennebunkport Warning gives an accurate picture of today’s world. We maintain that it does, and that it is true independently of who signs it or does not sign it. Those who have never learned to take responsibility for their own signatures will now fall by the wayside. But those who remain committed to operating in the real world as it exists independent of signatures or non-signatures must now redouble their efforts of mobilization to stop the Cheney neocon faction. Nobody should be demoralized or disoriented by the void of leadership which this matter has revealed; it is rather time to fill that void. We call on all persons and organizations of good will everywhere in the world to support the Kennebunkport Warning. We appeal to them to endorse it, to post it, to sign it, to publish it, and to recruit new signers as fast as they possibly can.