September 4, 2007

The Latest on the Kennebunkport Warning Controversy

The Kennebunkport Warning Controversy has had many developments (newest first):

Jenny Sparks writes When Prophecy Fails:

First there was "Noble Resolve". Then came the "Kennebunkport Warning". Now we're living through the "End Times"--ahem, I mean "TOPOFF 4"---notice a pattern?

There seem to be interests who want to enable and encourage an "End Times" meme in 9/11 Activism. Captain May's Portland Nuclear Inquest--and, to a lesser extent, Ginny Ross' OTA-- has some of the hallmarks of cult manipulation:

Selected from How Cults Work

-cult leaders will tell you can only be "saved" (or can only be successful) in their organization alone.
-Character Assassination
-In a mind control cult any information from outside the cult is considered evil, especially if it is opposing the cult. Members are told not to read it or believe it. Only information supplied by the cult is true.
-End of world pressure.
-Secret knowledge.
Jenny Sparks writes Activism is Counter Intelligence:
Course, as 9/11 activists, our application of the above tools will be wildly different from what Olson conceived. We are not a centralized organization and there is no bureaucracy. And we'll need to go our of our way to liaise with independent 9/11 groups working the CI angle. But our effectiveness has the potential to become exponential once we do. This is of course in addition to all the excellent work already being done. One idea is to make non-public viewable on-line networking groups, focusing on whatever aspect of activism has your interest. Again this is in addition to what you do that is in the public domain. Invite only people you know or can be vouched for. Review these tools, Olson's comments and see what imagination produces.

Jenny Sparks writes Is the Oregon Truth Alliance Grassroots or Astroturf?

We're going to play "connect the dots". Whether it's fair or not, we are judged by our allies and supporters. Unless we go out of our way to qualify the relationship, people will make assumptions by association, whether explicit or implicit.

Arabesque makes a summary of all of his posts on the controversy.

Jenny Sparks writes:

It ocured to me that Dkos readers might want to know more about the behind the
This is a brief acccount of how a group
of activists at exposed an attempt to drive a wedge between the
Peace movement and the Truth movement. For a more detailed account, go to
Arabesque's blog:

Suffice it to say, Webster Tarpley has burned his bridge with the Truth movement. Until such a future time that he apologizes in public and in full for his shabby treatment of brave anti-war activists like Cindy Sheehan and Dahlia Wasfi, he has no place among us. We will not tolerate this behavior from those who claim to be part of the Truth Movement.

Michael Wolsey writes:

Despite a courteous denial [of signing the Kennebunkport warning], supplying their reasons and wishing those in the 9-11 movement luck, these messages [by anti-war activists] were met with extremely harsh rhetoric coming from the supporters of the KW, led by its author, Webster Tarpley himself...

Why then, immediately before the 6th anniversary 9-11 events, did Mr. Tarpley and other supporters of the KW viciously attack leaders of the Peace Movement? Why did you and your followers do this Mr. Tarpley, and why did you lead the way in these attacks? Apparently the call to respect others and act in a “manner, without slander, without defamation, without ad hominem attacks on every page” does not extend to members of the Peace Movement. We find out later that they do not extend to the 9-11 Truth Movement either.

I have to say that it is more than puzzling to attempt to explain Mr. Tarpley’s behavior toward the alleged signers of the KW. It is completely contrary to his previous statements calling for unity, and goes against his efforts to promote the KW as an important document. I cannot speak for others but I would think a reasonable individual who wanted to promote a certain cause, or in this case, a “document”, would want to avoid controversy. If you really wanted widespread attention for your cause, controversy would be detrimental to your credibility and would turn people off to your message. So why then, did the active supporters of the KW do everything possible to create as much controversy as possible?

Unfortunately, Mr. Tarpley again ignored his own advice, when on September 6th, 2007 he renewed his attacks on the “Dahliar 4”. On his radio program, Mr. Tarpley again used his platform to attack those who claimed that they did not sign the KW, but this time his derogatory rhetoric included ad hominem attacks on me, Cosmos and, Arabesque and his website, meticulous 9-11 researcher Jon Gold, and blogger “Col. Jenny Sparks”. We were 5 people who had the courage to stand up and say “Hey wait a minute here!” when we saw Mr. Tarpley and others attacking these ladies in the Peace movement. Many of us who have been involved in the 9-11 movement for a long time have worked hard on forging relationships between our movement and the Peace movement. We saw these attacks as detrimental to all of our hard work and called Mr. Tarpley and Mr. Hill out on their reprehensible behavior. We have said all along that we do not totally disagree with the content of the KW. What we do object to is the way the alleged “signers” were treated by the author and purveyors of this document. We have also asked the question, and still do, why don’t you take these signatures off your document? Why did you not address our concerns Mr. Tarpley, but instead, chose to engage in the exact behavior we abhor from the mainstream media? Instead of answering our questions, you attacked us Mr. Tarpley. Answer our questions won’t you? Why did you attack these ladies in the Peace movement? Why don’t you take them off your document?

May I be the first of many to denounce such behavior from Mr. Tarpley and I demand a public retraction and apology, to myself, and to all whom Mr. Tarpley has attacked, including the ladies in the Peace Movement who want their names removed from the KW. Mr. Tarpley, you also owe the entire movement an apology for such juvenile actions and behaviors...

In closing I will say that what Mr. Tarpley has done to cause the controversy surrounding the KW is nothing short of despicable. Additionally, he has for years promoted some of the worst information regarding the 9-11 cover-up, a fact that seems to either have been ignored, or hidden in plain sight, or both. Today, instead of practicing what he preaches, he simply attacks anyone who might dare stand up to his egomaniacal little tirade against the Peace Activists. I am aware of calls to move past the KW, and yes, I would like nothing better. This has cost me many hours of valuable time that I could have used much better. However, the fact remains that Webster G. Tarpley has behaved in a way that cannot and should not be ignored. In the past, and using the mantra “for the sake of the movement”, it has been the practice to ignore these disruptors. What has ignoring these people done? Have things got better as a result of ignoring them? Have they gone away? On the contrary, like busy little termites, the have been slowly eating away at the foundations of our movement. These outrageous actions by Mr. Tarpley cannot, and will not go unchallenged by me. We as a movement need to come together on how we handle such disruptors and re-evaluate the unwritten, failed policy of ignoring them and hoping they will just go away.

9/11 Whistle blower Kevin Ryan comments:

People asked how this could have happened. Then accusations were made, culminating in some ludicrous claims that some of our best leaders were disinformation agents for the government. How can we tell? Because, for example, one wears sunglasses and another has a beard. Brilliant.

Maybe this is just another ego problem, and maybe not. If it is, then it’s another opportunity to better understand that common problem we share. After all, that is the game upon which we are, as a society, being played.

As usual, we’ll see how these things develop, but we don’t really need any more warnings. We’ll do what we can to communicate the vital need for 9/11 truth and reach out to others in our country who work for peace. Until then, my thoughts and support go out to the great Cindy Sheehan, my friends Jon Gold and Michael Wolsey, the fine writer Arabesque, and those others who were unfairly treated in this incident. Hang in there and don’t give up hope.

Jim Hoffman comments on the controvery:

Webster Tarpley described five individuals investigating claims surrounding
the "Kennebunkport Warning" as COINTELPRO in an ad-hominem filled commentary delivered in his September 6, 2007 edition of his radio show World Crisis Radio, and on September 8 to an audience at a New York City sixth anniversary event.

I know something about 3 of Tarpley's accused ... I support:

Michael Woolsey
A Colorado activist who has worked for years on 9/11
Strives for reasoned dialog, strong evidence.
Has the courage to discuss COINTELPRO (to understand its workings, not label individuals.)

A Bay-Area activist who I met in 2003.
Has worked for years for 9/11 truth.

A thoughtful, painstaking researcher.
Examines the disinformation muddying 9/11 research(to shows its workings, not label individuals.)

Attacking Sheehan and others peace activists with insults and accusations of lying ... To what end?
Is hurtful to the victims of the attack.
Is hurtful to common cause between 9/11 truth and peace communities.
However gracious the immediate targets are, it sends a message: don't come anywhere near 9/11 truth.

From Michael Wolsey:

Visibility 9-11 welcomes peace activist Dr. Dahlia Wasfi to discuss her connections to the war in Iraq, her activism against the war, and her views on the 9-11 cover-up. Dr. Wasfi also responds to recent ad hominem attacks aimed at her and other alleged “signers” of the Kennebunkport Warning

From Michael Wolsey:

Cc: chrisemery@[redacted]
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 20:46:51 -0400

To Webster Tarpley and Bruce Marshall:

After careful review of the conduct and statements made by some individuals responsible for the drafting and promotion of the KW document and subsequent postings of that document on various websites showing various signatures that are NOT approved by the signees; I am withdrawing my support of the KW document and my signature from the list off signees offering such support.

It is unfortunate that verbal attacks have been made against personal friends of mine during the promotion of the KW document. I know first hand that these verbal attacks are unfounded and counterproductive to the 911 Truth truth movement.

Please make no mistake that I do support the principle of the document calling for the immediate, resolute impeachement of VP Dick Cheney.

I DO NOT agree with the unfounded statements made about some 911 truth activists and radio show hosts that are trying to present the KW document in an even handed, level headed manner.

Therefore: I am withdrawing my name from the list of signatories supporting the KW document - effective immediately - 7:45 PM - CST Sunday - September 9, 2007
Respectfully submitted:

Chris Emery
OTR Films, LLC

From YT of Truth Action:

Michael Wolsey of was the guest on the Sept. 3 edition of Truth Revolution Radio. We discuss his work as a truth activist and radio host, with a special focus on his series on cointelpro. We are also joined by 911blogger's own Col. Jenny Sparks and discuss a bit of the controversy behind The Kennebunkport Warning. Bruce Marshall joins the show during the last segment to discuss his role in promoting The Warning.

TRR Archive

I’d like to give thanks to YT, JoanJones, and Col. Jenny Sparks, for their efforts and collaboration in discovering the truth about this affair.

I would also like to officially apologize for the actions of "supposed" members of the 9/11 truth movement. In fact, Col. Jenny Sparks has written an apology to Cindy Sheehan and the anti-war activists and I heartily endorse it. I commend the courage of the anti-war activists and strongly support their aims to end pointless and destructive wars. I thank them for their statement of support for 9/11 activists despite the shameful accusations and insults from the Kennebunkport Warning promoters.

Shortly after the controversy erupted, Webster Tarpley provided inflammatory and divisive comments against anti-war activists:

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

"Adults Are Responsible For What They Sign"

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

"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 strange insinuation that the Kennebunkport Warning is the main concern is frequently heard from those pushing it; but it is a deliberate evasion. The main issue is the fact that non-9/11 activists are being attacked. This is a black and white issue that does not require speculation about what did and did not happen.

Yes, "adults are responsible for what they sign," but they are also responsible for what they say. What kind of 9/11 truth "leader" attacks non-9/11 truth activists as "liars" and "wretched individuals"? Certainly not one that I will support.

Webster Tarpley has quite presented us quite the conspiracy theory. Not only did these anti-war activists claim they didn't sign the document--they had the exact same story about what they DID sign--a resolution involving impeachment. Think about that for a minute. Did these signers all decide to join together, deny signing the document, and then come up with the exact same story about what they did sign? This conspiracy theory on its face seems very implausible.

I'll be the first to admit I can't prove that the signatures were faked or forged onto the warning. But, this is not the issue—the issue is one of divisiveness. Who is trying to bring the peace movement together with the 9/11 truth movement and who is trying to divide them? Observations about this are simple and clear.

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

I agree. 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 the unity? Where is any attempt to simply label this a misunderstanding?

I don’t have to tell you it's not coming from Webster Tarpley.