Ann Wright and C. McKinney et al issue dire warning of false flag and/or attack on Iran

I'm assuming I won't get banned for this since I'm providing such a credible source; (especially since Paul Craig Roberts also issued a similar warning recently).

A group of former government officials along with current Congressional candidates, authors and activists has issued an urgent warning that a faction of the US government allied with Dick Cheney is planning to stage a terror event or provocation as a pretext for launching military attacks against Iran and implementing emergency powers in America.

Former US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, along with former US Diplomat and Colonel in the US Army reserve Ann Wright have put their names to an open letter warning that massive evidence points to an upcoming event.

Current Congressional candidates Cindy Sheehan and Craig Hill are also among the signatories to the letter.

Here is the letter in full:

To the American people, and to peace loving individuals everywhere:

"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. 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."-

(Signed) A Group of US Opposition Political Leaders Gathered in Protest at the Bush Compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, August 24-25, 2007
CYNTHIA MCKINNEY, FORMER US CONGRESSWOMAN, GEORGIA
CINDY SHEEHAN, CANDIDATE FOR US CONGRESS, CALIFORNIA
CRAIG HILL, CANDIDATE FOR US CONGRESS, VERMONT GREEN PARTY
BRUCE MARSHALL, CONVENOR, PHILADELPHIA PLATFORM
JAMILLA EL-SHAFEI, KENNEBUNK PEACE DEPARTMENT
WEBSTER G. TARPLEY, AUTHOR
ANN WRIGHT, COLONEL US ARMY RESERVE, FORMER US DIPLOMAT
DR. DAHLIA WASFI, WWW.LIBERATETHIS.COM
GEORGE PAZ MARTIN
JOHN KAMINSKI , PRESIDENT MAINE LAWYERS FOR DEMOCRACY

•  Um...

  ...could we see the massive evidence first?

  by Bill W on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:58:23 PM PDT

  •  No kidding

    I don't put on my tin foil hat for nothing.  At least show me a little leg.

    by Dr Colossus on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:00:25 PM PDT

  •  You really need that?

    despite the credibility of the signatories

    /snark

    by Catte Nappe on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:02:15 PM PDT

    •  Hehehehe. n/t

      by Pager on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:16:02 PM PDT

    •  Oh, goddamnit.

      I just looked over the names and I noticed Dr. Wasfi's name on the list and she is credible.  

      She is an Iraqi/Jewish American, who has spoke at Congressional hearings about the disaster in Iraq, the ongoing lack of infrastructure, potable drinking water, security issues, et al. She visited her extended family in Iraq for 3 months in 2005 or 2006. She's a doctor and she's no quack, I can promise you. She is heavily involved with the international peace movement and she spoke at a local peace event in my small mountain town last fall.

      I cannot imagine her putting her name on anything as serious as this, if it didn't have some basis in reality.

      by Pager on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:22:09 PM PDT

      •  Are you sure she

        put her name on it?

        by MsWings on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:38:26 PM PDT

        •  She's heavily involved in the anti-war

          movement and has been a leading and outspoken critic of the Bush administration and its invasion of Iraq, so I have no reason to doubt that she put her name to it. She works with Cindy Sheehan, too.

          by Pager on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:41:35 PM PDT

          •  She didn't put her name on it -- it's bogus.

            read this.

            by dave1042 on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:43:17 PM PDT

            •  Just reading the comment downthread.

              Thank God. I feel much better now. :)

              by Pager on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:43:56 PM PDT

            •  Fake signatures

                Recently I perused a bound volume of The New Leader
              (a social democratic weekly in which Martin Luther King, Jr's, Letter from a Birmingham Jail, " was 1st published) from 1951. The "Peace Appeal" of the World Peace Council (a "front group" on the Moscow Communists) got millions of signatures for their disarmament appeal. The Stalinists added Duke Ellington's name. When he found out, he gave them 48 hours to issue an apology. They deleted his name. Though he had supported various "front groups" in the 30's dominated by the CPUSA, by this period he had severed any links with that mileau.

              by mjuygv on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:54:30 PM PDT

            •  Thanks, Dave. n.t

              by Karmafish on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 01:05:14 PM PDT

        •  You're right.

          See downthread.

          by Pager on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:44:16 PM PDT

•  so simple, so short, well done. n/t

  by oysterface on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:00:58 PM PDT

  •  OMG, meant to reply to

    Bill W! Please make the stupidity (including mine) stop...

    by oysterface on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:02:34 PM PDT

•  Anything with Cynthia McKinney's name on it has

  zero credibility. She has a history of tin foil hat associations. Not worth a diary IMHO.

  by VolvoDrivingLiberal on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:02:06 PM PDT

•  While I don't doubt that Cheney

  is capable of putting such a plan into motion, I'm concerned by the absence of specific facts provided in the letter.

  To say that "massive evidence has come to our attention", though unsettling, falls far short of an open, factual basis upon which reasonable conclusions may be drawn and assessed.

  I'm all for impeaching Cheney, but in the meantime, Congress should amend both the War Powers Act and the current Authorization to Use Military Force so that the unitary executive cannot create a war quite so easily.

  Sigh.

  by TerribleTom on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:02:41 PM PDT

  •  Dire Warnings

      Last week these loons said Portland, Oregon was going to be NUKED on the orders of Cheney in a "false flag" provocations. Nutcases.
    http://portland.indymedia.org/...

    by mjuygv on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:57:13 PM PDT

•  Let me know when Seymour Hersh signs on

  Or maybe Ralph Nader... or Thomas Ricks.

  by Dave the Wave on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:04:26 PM PDT

•  Some have said

  that there is massive evidence.

  Some have said that the moon is made of green cheese.

  I'm not saying Cheney wouldn't do this, but if you really wanted to warn people about a real threat, you'd show the evidence.

  by Clues on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:04:52 PM PDT

  •  Evidence?

    They haven't manufactured it yet.

    Nor do they have anyone with the credibility of Colin Powell to deliver the news of a fake threat.

    by MikeTheLiberal on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:07:15 PM PDT

•  Keep the eyes peeled

  Just because you don't like some of the signatories, doesn't mean this isn't a credible concern.

  by MikeTheLiberal on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:06:00 PM PDT

  •  some, some?

    show me a creditable Dem on the list.

    by oysterface on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:07:40 PM PDT

    •  I don't know if Dr. Dalia Wasfi

      is a Dem, but she sure as hell is considered credible. What I am curious about is how these folks have access to this information--seems like this would be the kind of info that one would need a security clearance to access.

      by Pager on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:24:19 PM PDT

      •  Intelligent, credible people

        can still have a boneheaded idea or two. Isaac Newton's alchemy immediately comes to mind.

        by sbdenmon on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:31:12 PM PDT

        •  True, that.

          And I do have to wonder out loud where they are getting their hands on this kind of intelligence.

          Then again, in the last war, there was no intelligence and we invaded anyway so...

          by Pager on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:33:16 PM PDT

          •  That statement is true

            in every possible connotation. ;-)

            in the last war, there was no intelligence

            by sbdenmon on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:35:43 PM PDT

            •  Hehehe. n/t

              by Pager on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:42:40 PM PDT

          •  "True that"

              These folks accept very dubious evidence. Webster Tarpley, as I noted is a longtime LaRoucheite. He frequently appears at Impeachment events with Dave Lindorff. Lindorff's "evidence" of a, "Secret Pentagon Report, " from June (check dKOS diaries by him on Martial Law from a month or two ago) was lifted off the website of Hal Turner, a far right white supremacist much admired by the neo-Nazi loons at Stormfront. Another website with exactly the same supposed Pentagon Report was Rense.com Yup, the the website w/tons about UFO's and the Illuminati Conspirators.

            by mjuygv on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:04:18 PM PDT

            •  "These folks"

              didn't accept anything, apparently. Read through the whole thread--it's a hoax.

              by Pager on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 07:03:20 AM PDT

      •  Webster Tarpley

          Longtime LaRoucheite. AARGH.
        PublicEye.org - Lyndon LaRouche: Fascist Demagogue - 13 visits - Aug 26
        PRA Senior Analyst Chip Berlet is featured in an article in The Independent after LaRouche supporter Jeremiah Duggan is found dead in Germany. ...
        www.publiceye.org/larouche/

        by mjuygv on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:59:17 PM PDT

•  If the evidence is so massive

  why do they not cite a single shred of it? I would not put this past Cheney, but we can't impeach him just on an unsubstantiated allegation. Let's see some real evidence, otherwise it just seems like another crackpot theory from the lunatic fringe.

  by MaverickModerate on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:07:31 PM PDT

•  Oh, my gosh....

  ....how on earth will I ever get through the day after hearing this distressing news. My grandson just told me the turtle had eaten the crawfish, and the yellow lab was now eating the turtle. When I got in the play room, I realized it was all just a big hoax played by a 5 year old with a great imagination.

  by pere on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:19:59 PM PDT

•  Oh ye of many screen names

  This guy (the author of "The Switch" by the way) has so many screen names his cyber closet has to be over-flowing with the various hats to fit the various names.

  For those of you not familiar with "The Switch", please don't ask unless you're really into surrealistic fantasy. Nah--don't even ask if you are.

  Don't know if he keeps getting banned here and has to come up with a new moniker or if he just has a multiple personality disorder and can't help himself.

  by witchamakallit on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:20:19 PM PDT

  •  Why do you always blow me off despite

    the many people who have absolutely raved about it? One guy from DK told me the other day that it should be read aloud from every street corner in America. And a guy at a coffee shop said he and all his friends have read it and loved it. So stop acting like it's worthless just because you think so.

    And I get banned because  I've mentioned that 9/11 appears to be an inside job.

    by to hell with George W Bush on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:24:44 PM PDT

    •  Maybe you get banned

      because of your, oh 2 dozen or so screen names on a site that doesn't allow it? Maybe you repeatedly get banned because you keep coming back when that is also not part of the site plan?

      And why should anyone believe what you claim all these "guys and gals" say...seems they all "rave" about it, yet its yet to find a publisher?

      Sorry, you skirt the rules of Kos. If that gets you banned, so be it.

      by witchamakallit on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 09:07:29 AM PDT

      •  I guess you never heard that

        "Gone with the Wind" got rejected a bunch of times before being picked up, and the Beatles were turned down several times before getting a producer.

        by to hell with George W Bush on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 10:06:26 AM PDT

•  Show the Evidence or Delete this Diary

  Where is the "massive evidence"?

  Maybe McKinney and Wright, when they used to work for the Federal government (House and Army, respectively), actually did see some such evidence that they are not at liberty to reveal. But what special privilege do the rest of those signers have that gets them access to secret evidence they cannot reveal to the rest of us civilians with the same status as them?

  Without that evidence, which a serious whistleblower would include while making such a big stink, this letter looks like a publicity stunt without real basis. It undermines the credibility of the people signing the statement. Which is increasingly the business that McKinney and Sheehan are in, regardless of what other reasonable and credible positions they might otherwise have had. And that list of nobodies has no public credibility to start with, so their names just make them look like they're looking for a share of glory without actual basis.

  These kinds of stunts make it harder to keep the country organized against the actual likelihood of the threats. Cheney's spin juggernaut depends of discrediting messengers to discredit the message. Therefore these political opportunists, even if they're right about Cheney's plot to invade Iran, are working for Cheney, whether they realize it or not, by working against Cheney's opposition.

  And, by promoting it, you are working for that, too. Which means you're helping Cheney send us to war with Iran.

  Please deliver the evidence, or edit this diary to reverse your endorsement of the letter, or just delete it. This is the most serious kind of stuff. It's not for confused amateurs just because you have a public soapbox that fits into Cheney's propaganda model.

  by DocGonzo on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:21:06 PM PDT

  •  Well said Doc

    actually helping Cheney, the same way the 911 ct's and the Kennedy theories helped to confuse and dissipate the interest and fury.
      Cheney's pals are certainly capable of this, but preemptive rumors, done so ineptly are dangerous.

    by KenBee on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:23:51 PM PDT

    •  Real Conspiracies

      Much as I hate to complain into a compliment, I think it's a mistake to dismiss all 9/11 and Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories merely because they are "conspiracy theories". Because there most certainly are conspiracies about as evil, at just as high levels, as those two that are often discussed.

      Even this "Cheney and his gang wants to invade Iran" conspiracy theory is worth discussing. Not in the terms of this letter and diary, which assert that it's certain, even invoking "massive evidence", but without showing any evidence. That kind of bad logic discredits even very plausible hypotheses. The problem is converting a hypothesis into a theory with bad logic that is ultimately merely circular rhetoric.

      Invading Iran. Foreknowledge and complicity in the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks. Assassinating Kennedy. These are all horrendous events which were plausibly created by malevolent members of the government. In fact, they were plausibly created by at least overlapping conspiracies, if not actually many of the same people with a hand in all of them. But just as claiming they're certainly true without enough evidence or proper logic is wrong, so too is dismissing them despite the evidence and logic that does support them, just by calling them a dismissive name like "conspiracy theories". Coincidence theories, saying the evidence left by actual events is just mere coincidence without disproving their consequence, are also bad. Which leave the public confused about these essential pivots in history, without knowing why, but feeling like it cannot trust anyone, or any investigation into anything of consequence.

      The truth is out there. Sometimes it's far out. Fortunately, responsible analysis can go as far as necessary to redeem the truth. If we choose it over irresponsible political posturing.

      by DocGonzo on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:07:22 PM PDT

      •  problem with your analysis

        It takes a lot of time to pore over every iota of evidence. Fact is, we've all been hearing enough to know something is coming down the pike. How many Maccabees can you dismiss? Condi Rice had enough to go on with her August briefing on Bin Ladin. We have enough too, to know that the time for nitpicking is nearing an end. When you are in the sixth stage of fascism it's time to ACT. So said Cindy Sheehan, when she told people to get out from behind the computers and DO SOMETHING. Of course, this was right before she recanted on her signing of the Kennebunkport Warning. It's easier, I guess to call people nobodies who ARE willing to take a stand. You don't like the phrasing of their words, and want to quibble? A Nero mindset, if ever I heard one.

        by lauriedobson on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 03:27:30 PM PDT

        •  The trouble with this...

          ...is that Tarpley issued a false flag warning last year. It's kind of like crying wolf. As a former high level associate of Lyndon LaRouche, conspiracy is currency for Tarpley.

          We need to focus on bringing the troops home from Iraq, keeping us out of Iran and impeaching Cheney and Bush (in that order) for high crimes and misdemeanors.

          Is it any accident that Dennis Kucinich, who actually "did something" by bringing articles of impeachment against Cheney, who has a 12-point plan for withdrawing from Iraq and who was in Kennebunkport did not sign?

          by Dr Who on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 05:41:53 PM PDT

          •  I didn't sign either, until...

            This document was at my farm and others signed it before the rally. I decided to sign it because I was inspired by Cindy's rallying cry to DO SOMETHING--an act of non-violent civil disobedience, and not just to sit behind the computer. I walked over to Bruce and told him I wanted to look at it. I saw the event organizer's name and decided that if she could be brave enough to sign it, so could I. If Dennis didn't sign it, maybe he had some reticence for good reason. I don't fault him for not signing it. He's doing plenty. Everybody has to do what they can. That doesn't include tar and feathering the people who got you to agree to sign it, though. That's not honorable in my book.
            Laurie Dobson

            by lauriedobson on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 06:08:14 PM PDT

            •  What to do

              When Cindy said to do something, I'm sure she didn't mean "Do anything." No one can assail the great value of putting your property on the line for Camp Alex and opening your home to strangers.

              Cindy, by her dissociation from the statement, is now saying "Don't do this."

              Nonviolence itself must be strategic. Rosa Parks's act of civil disobedience is often portrayed as "spontaneous". But she herself was trained at the Highlander School and in her witness was backed by an entire community ready to "do something" and go on boycott. Let's think of the community, and modeling within it the very conflict resolution we would seek for the rest of the world.

              We cannot be wise as doves and allow the peace movement to be infiltrated and divided by those with other agendas to drive.

              Sapientia est distinguere.

              by Dr Who on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 08:52:03 AM PDT

  •  Have you not heard about the massive put options?

    Some anonymous banker stands to make a ton of money if the market loses 1/3 of its value by Sept 21...or he'll lose 10 billion. And on here was the story about FEMA training pastors to control mobs. And the Executive order from May 9.

    by to hell with George W Bush on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:27:56 PM PDT

    •  Did You Hear About the Alien Bodies?

      Actually, I have heard about the alien bodies. So what?

      What does that have to do with Cheney pushing us into war with Iran?

      Repeating some vague rumor is not "massive evidence". Link to some reliable evidence for this "false flag / attack". Or stop this mindless chatter that makes it harder to find sense in all this chaos.

      by DocGonzo on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:32:33 PM PDT

      •  ad infinitum, ad nauseum

        by the time you have a smoking gun that suits you, it could easily be too late. I don't like wild speculation either but I think that there are honorable efforts out there and punkish putdowns are too easy. What's your real motive for this line of questioning? Maybe you are put in the blogosphere so you can punch down every honorable effort made for progress on the impeachment/anti-war/progressive front. Why not focus on the alternatives to war and join with them? If the argument needs bolstering, maybe you are the one who needs to do it. Stop bellyaching and get to work!

        by lauriedobson on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 03:32:51 PM PDT

•  What is needed to update

  an earthquake kit into a martial law kit? Gold? Bullets? Fur lined hand cuffs?

  by NCrefugee on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:24:37 PM PDT

  •  Slim Pickens

    Remember his character in Dr Strangelove? As they get ready to drop the bomb, he's running through the checklist, and everybody examines their survival kits:

    "One .45 caliber pistol... 5 gold krugerrands... one package of nylons... one dose of morphine... hoo wee, a fella could have a good time in Las Vegas with this."

    by The Raven on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:59:07 PM PDT

•  What, no tip jar? n/t

  by sbdenmon on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:27:32 PM PDT

•  OTOH, we *could* use the Cheney 1% Doctrine

  against his Heepishness:  "If there's even a 1% chance that this is true, we should impeach his ass to ensure the security of all Americans."

  by sxwarren on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:31:51 PM PDT

•  Well, I haven't even been active here long enough

  to even write my first diary, but...

  Y'all might as well now that I am a borderline woo woo. I get a case of the eye rolls as much as anyone, but in light of the past 6 years and the facts that have come out in the mainstream press, I get 'em a lot less often than I used to.
  I wish so much that people would keep the really wild speculations toned down so that they wouldn't suck the credibility out of real possiblities. Now, I'll spit in the other hand. That doesn't mean that nothing of value is presented. Too much of "the crazy stuff" has come to pass and we all know it and protest it.

  The night after Gonzales resigned, it hit me. This is just my thought, no one else has said anything about it. That I know of.
  It doesn't make sense that Rove and then Gonzales have resigned, especially not on the heels of FISA, especially not after all of the NON reaction/ oversight by Congress. But the clincher was setting the date: "before Labor Day". I FEAR (fear. not believe, preceive or predict) that something is going to happen shortly after Congress re-convenes and in DC. It SEEMS like some in Congress know something. Reid, Pelosi & especially, John Conyers are acting really, really hincty.

  I hope I am COMPLETELY over-reacting to fear & paranoia. I WANT to think that all these guys; Republican and Democrat alike- people high in our military, the CIA, FBI, NSA, all of that, have been following along and are prepared to act, if needed, to save this country. I see them as our only hope.

  I don't fear the terr'ists at ALL. Who I DO fear are the NeoCONS. I don't think there has ever been a more brutal, psychotic despot than what we are facing  right now.

  God, I pray I am wrong, but I think that Ms McKinney's concerns are valid.

  by bitchinabluestreak on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:32:36 PM PDT

  •  With this I can agree:

    I don't fear the terr'ists at ALL. Who I DO fear are the NeoCONS. I don't think there has ever been a more brutal, psychotic despot than what we are facing  right now.

    Completely, in fact.

    But this diary - and the supposed signers of the letter - does nothing (presents nothing) to convince me that this is a credible threat.

    by MsWings on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:47:29 PM PDT

•  Dahlia Wasfi denounces this as bogus

  from her website:

  The Bush administration has proven that sacrificing lives of Americans and other innocents around the world is a price worth paying in the name of criminal corporate profit.  Dr. Phil says that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.  As such, it is certainly within the realm of possibility for the neo-conservative junta in Washington to launch another war based on lies.  However, I do not have "the smoking gun," if you will, to prove it.

  I signed a statement in Kennebunkport to endorse the impeachment of Dick Cheney, but my signature has been used on this "Warning" without my consent.  While I was humbled to have my signature misappropriated with such prominent voices as Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney, and Jamilla El-Shafei, none of us signed that document.

  Therefore, please contact the statement's distributors for information on their evidence.

  With you in the struggle until justice is served,

  Dahlia

  by dave1042 on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:35:08 PM PDT

  •  great job

    After reading the above diary I check with some of my more reliable sources and none had even heard a more than a whispers about this. The only slightly credible thing that seems to be out there is rumor about something to do with some large moves in the Stock Market in Sept. coupled with a cover of some kind of exercise linked with the Bird Flu. Nothing I would swear to or bet money on at this point.

    by OneCrankyDom on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:40:35 PM PDT

  •  Man, that's a major no no, I should think.

    Who are the distributors of this and how could one contact them?

    by Pager on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:45:49 PM PDT

    •  I think

      "to hell with George W Bush" is one of them ;-)

      by dave1042 on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:47:59 PM PDT

      •  I'd say that's a given! n/t

        by MsWings on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:49:29 PM PDT

•  Ruh roh

  Dr. Wasfi posts the following:

  The Bush administration has proven that sacrificing lives of Americans and other innocents around the world is a price worth paying in the name of criminal corporate profit.  Dr. Phil says that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.  As such, it is certainly within the realm of possibility for the neo-conservative junta in Washington to launch another war based on lies.  However, I do not have "the smoking gun," if you will, to prove it.  

  I signed a statement in Kennebunkport to endorse the impeachment of Dick Cheney, but my signature has been used on this "Warning" without my consent.  While I was humbled to have my signature misappropriated with such prominent voices as Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney, and Jamilla El-Shafei, none of us signed that document.

  Therefore, please contact the statement's distributors for information on their evidence.

  http://www.liberatethis.com/

  by Catte Nappe on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:43:52 PM PDT

•  LETTER IS FRAUDULENT

  Hey KOS, where is my smite this diary button?

  This needs to be smote asap.  

  To hell with George W Bush -- please note that one of the more credible signatories has clearly statedthat this letter is a fraud.

  PLEASE delete your diary!

  by Mother of Zeus on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:48:19 PM PDT

•  I'd like it kept

  just corrected in title and context to show that it is bogus --  otherwise it'll keep getting diaried...

  by dave1042 on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:50:10 PM PDT

  •  That would work too n/t

    by Mother of Zeus on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:51:30 PM PDT

  •  I added hoax to the tags

    but I wanted to delete all the other tags. First time I've ever changed tags, anyone else have more experience since the diarist is non-responsive.

    by oysterface on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:03:48 PM PDT

    •  You did the right thing.

      Deleting tags is a big no-no. Frankly, I'm tempted to add "troll diary," as well.

      by sbdenmon on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:06:19 PM PDT

    •  yeah, 'cept that's not a common tag

      maybe it pops up in tag tool? i dunno. "disinformation, trolls, troll diary" are alternatives perhaps to refute this publication? sadly, the lie as is ought to be readily accessible.

      your call.

      by MarketTrustee on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:15:46 PM PDT

      •  52 times for hoax

        disinformation, 149 times

        To me they are distinct so I will leave it alone for the moment and let the folks at the Cleanup Project decide when they wean stuff down to >5k.

        Thanks so much for the links just below to the tagging tools. But it would also be really nice if they were listed on the tag tips page!

        by oysterface on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:47:57 PM PDT

        •  second that emotion n/t

          by MarketTrustee on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:23:49 PM PDT

    •  Thanks for tagging this diary as a hoax.......

      However, I suggest, instead, tagging with either 'Troll Diary' or gibberish, in order to bring it to the attention of the tag editors. We daily scrub or remap the new tags. This can correctly be labeled a troll diary, since the content is bogus, AND the diarist failed to comment. But if you want the tag editors to pass judgment, then a good strategy to call the diary to our attention is to add a new tag, which a random string of letters would do. 'Hoax' and 'fraud' are pre-existing tags, and thus would not come to our attention. Thanks.

      Tag Search Tool

      by Halcyon on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 06:34:38 PM PDT

•  okay, now we know the letter is a forgery

  where the fuck did you get it from?

  by oysterface on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:57:50 PM PDT

  •  Posted on myspace

    I was already of the opinion that something big is coming, that's why I find it credible.

    by to hell with George W Bush on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:32:35 PM PDT

•  tag cleanup

  "false flag, cabal, martial law:" these were your tags. while i won't editorialize the validity of the letter, the content falls under the categories "conspiracy, protest as well as named signatories, so added. this unsourced material may yet be deleted by management however.

  in future please refer to the following sources for tagging guidance. librarians are working to normalize the db before release of dkos 4.0
  -----------------------------
  DailyKos Tag Cleanup Project
  Tag Librarian History
  Tagging Tips
  list of the most common tags, alphabetically
  Great Tag Search Tool
  ------------------------------
  thanks for your cooperation.

  by MarketTrustee on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:07:07 PM PDT

•  Wow - McKinney AND Sheehan?

  That's some credible signatories, right there.

  Of course the skepticism is natural, but the overall point has already become apparent to everyone who is paying any kind of attention of all. The administration (i.e., Dick Cheney) is hot to drop some ordnance on Iran.

  The reason for this is also very clear: Cheney believes in the One-Percent Doctrine, which states that if there's a remote possibility of something happening, we must act as if it were a 100-percent certainty.

  I have serious doubts about that, but we know that Cheney thinks this way.

  He doesn't want a nuclear-armed Iran, and war with them is merely a pretext, I believe, for the desire to bomb their plutonium enriching centrifuge program. Anyway, seems like every day we're hearing about Iran arming Iraqi insurgents, Iran delivering the shaped projectile IEDs, and Hannity's talking about "Iranians are targeting and killing our troops!"

  They're trying to make the idea that Iran is attacking us, and that we need to "defend" ourselves against them part of the conventional wisdom, and they're using FOX news and the right-wing hate machine create that reality. OK, we know all this.

  Given that fact, this cryptic letter is quite superfluous. There is indeed massive evidence and we see it every day.

  by The Raven on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:20:42 PM PDT

•  I don't think these people who supposedly

  signed on to this letter have much more- if any, information, than we do. All of these things; attacking Iran, the threat of some upcoming "terrorist attack", martial law- all of it is discussed constantly in "acceptable" political blogs and the MSM (& we know how freely expressed THAT is. If the Washington Post & NYTimes, etc are saying it, how bad is it, really?). The world press has been way ahead of ours. If you haven't noticed it escalating recently, well, you haven't noticed.

  It's not uncommon for a message associated with a particular person (based on their history) to be discounted. But sometimes, that's a mistake. My own favorite example is Howard Dean. A person with his vision and shear enthusiasm would have made a FABULOUS president. But look how it pushed  him into the background- solely because the right person(s) decided to sneer and snicker. Dennis Kucinich is another excellent example. (I'm not putting those 2 men in league with those listed on this letter. Just sayin.)

  Like it or not, the only probable way that we might forestall any of these speculations and right the wrongs of Constitution- destroying bills and signing statements is impeachment. It's not a guarantee. A false flag "terrorist attack" and/ or an attack on Iran could happen anyway. It could even expedite it.
  That fear shouldn't be a deterrent. And our own denial shouldn't have us wait until it is too late, either.

  If you would put a false flag attack or martial law past Cheney/ Bush after all that's happened, I dunno WHAT to say.

  by bitchinabluestreak on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:26:08 PM PDT

•  Well, I'm of the opinion

  that it would be beneficial to put the war-mongers, chomping at the bit to start dropping bombs on Iran that we're watching, we're aware and we put nothing past them.

  I don't see how anyone can doubt that they will do whatever it takes to rally public support for their PNAC plans, and if the letter and signatories are fake or not, I would still feel better if they know that we know they're up to something.

  by jen on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:47:12 PM PDT

•  I was in Kennebunkport...

  ...when this petition was offered for my signature as "The Philadelphia Warning" without promised massive evidence and without signatures of the claimed signatories. However, this is making the rounds of 9-11 conspiracist websites of the patriot variety. This warning has been PhotoShopped now as "The Kennebunkport Warning."

  Given these and other observations I made on-site, this is not only a hoax, but clearly one designed to discredit the anti-war movement and its leadership. Don't buy it.

  P.S.: Wasfi was one of the speakers at the K-Port post-march rally. In the previous week she had spoken at the Veterans for Peace Convention in St. Louis.

  by Dr Who on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 05:36:34 PM PDT

  •  Okay, so not PhotoShopped

    While it seems highly unlikely that all these names should appear together in one place, Laurie Dobson's comment below are evidence of an eyewitness account.

    My comments are more about context than text. There is at least a discrepancy between the signatories in the document provided by Bruce Marshall and those which appear in the main thread.

    More importantly with respect to context, what are the circumstances in which this was signed? What political interests underpin this petition's circulation? How is the statement now being used, and by what political interests?

    I think Cheney's and Bush's actions constitute "high crimes and misdemeaneors," impeachable offenses. One does not have to go far off the beaten path to find evidence of interest in attacking Iran. It's one thing to forewarn a possible Gulf of Tonkin incident. However, it's a stretch to predict a "false flag" 9-11 style attack in the US.

    This is being used to divide and discredit the anti-war movement and its leadership. More evidence is needed to say by whom and whether that is the intent of the petition. But the effect is all that matters, and what must be resisted with unity.

    It is the success of the Kennebunkport March and Rally and not fallout from the Kennebunkport Warning that should receive attention.

    by Dr Who on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 06:39:34 PM PDT

•  Kennebunkport Warning

  Dear Editor,
  I ran Camp Alex (Camp Casey Two) out of my farm during the Aug. 24-26 Peace Rally in K'port, Maine. I can verify the legitimacy of the Kennebunkport Warning. Many of us at the camp signed it--I saw the one with Sheehan and the others while it was in the process of being signed-before, during and after. It was the same as the one we all signed, which is posted on 911blogger.

  I had at least 75 campers stay here who would probably be able to attest to their awareness of the document and many would be able to share their evidence, if they chose to get involved, to prove that the document was authentic. Fifty of us heard Bruce speak about it while we were waiting to board the bus to go to the peace rally. We were all, it seemed to me, in general agreement about the dire state of the nation due to the Cheney faction.

  We were mostly all together at camp during much of the time when it was being signed at camp and many of us were witnesses to it being signed by others at the rally-- myself included, as I had a stage pass and was there at the stage tent when they were being asked to sign. There are pictures on the web which will verify my presence, talking to Kucinich's staff person, Michael Klein.

  Based on emails I have received, it is obvious to me that the big name people are afraid, but I believe that they should not defame those who asked them to sign the petition.

  In my view, this accusation of falsified documenting casts a cloud of suspicion over the brave efforts of those signators who are standing by their decision to sign the petition. I stand with those who signed it who are not backing down.

  Laurie Dobson

  by lauriedobson on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 08:40:38 AM PDT

•  Evidence of Kport Warning

  Sunday, September 9, 2007
  Evidence for the KPort Warning

  Kport Warning Evidence
  "... what we choose or say or do matters, it matters cosmically" Madeleine L'Engle

  I have decided to provide the information which I have claimed to have, that the Kennebunkport Warning is legitimate and not a hoax.There is evidence which I can produce,which shows proof that one of the four signators explained to me, early on, that she had not read the Kennebunkport Warning, which she signed. She also described her resentment, her fear and her concern that the Warning sounded threatening.

  These early emails she sent, to which I responded, do not claim that it was a hoax or a forgery. This charge was made later with a statement from four of the original signers, who withdrew their support of the document, with the accusation that they had signed a different document.

  I have decided to lay my cards on the table. I have to trust that, were I in her shoes, I would ultimately be glad that the truth was being told. I see now that my silence has been an act of complicity, which I now reject.

  I know that she did sign this document because 1. She has told me she did 2. She sent me several anxious emails. In these emails, she asserted that she did sign it but that she didn't read it. 3. I have recollection of this Warning at the rally. 4. I saw the statement which Ms. El-Shafei signed right after she signed it. I saw Bruce Marshall talking with her shortly before this signing. 5. I saw this statement during the time it was being signed, midway through, and I saw the finished signing.

  There were over 31 people who signed,mostly from the camp, not including the page which was signed by Cindy Sheehan and others. To my knowledge, the only people who have withdrawn their signatures are the four women, El-Shafei, Sheehan, Wright and Wasfi.

  I hope this clears up a few things for some people, in order that unfounded accusations may be diminished.

  This document has the support of the people who signed it, who have not been convinced to retract their support. Nobody forced them; it was entirely voluntary. That alone should mean something, since it isn't easy to go up against the very people who started this Peace Rally event, who are valued by the campers and myself as important contributors to the anti-war movement.It makes the contradiction more acute, more confusing and more painful to confront, when you look up to people who have acted in an unaccountably improper fashion.

  It is my fervent hope that these accusers of a hoax will find a way to provide a better, more uncompromised example of leadership. We are all human and we can understand that people may have felt threatened or have been threatened. We should, I think, help them by supplying our own acts of courage.

  For my part, I will make these emails available this week if no retractions are forthcoming to amend her claims of false representation. While she demurs, many will not see this document, which has been tainted by the false witness of her and the 3 other women.

  We must not allow the use of fear as a weapon to justify acts of injustice; instead let us have the fortitude sufficient to create the conditions for lasting peace.
  Laurie Dobson
  Kennebunkport, ME
  Sept. 8, 2007

  by lauriedobson on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 03:39:45 PM PDT