OK, folks.... I'm going to issue a "Kennebunkport" warning of my own...

 

It's time to start keeping your wits about you and sharpen up those "discernment" skills!

 

Because in the last few weeks, there has been a spate of bogus and forged articles or documents circulating on the Internet. Most of them are political in nature and are being deliberately pitched with an antiwar, anti-Administration flavor.

 

These operations are apparently seeking to take advantage of the natural inclination of the disaffected to believe the worst about impending world events and of people in positions of power. They will attempt to amplify the reality past the point of distortion in order to hide what is coming down the road in plain sight.

 

These kinds of "I'm on your side" fakes and forgeries are the most insidious kind of psy-op disinformation because they usually contain enough truth to be very plausible at first blush. They are the literary equivalents of "agents provocateurs"

 

Although their premise will be accurate, the devil is in the details that this kind of disinfo incorporates and then twists to suit its particular agenda. The intent of such poison is to gain enough initial authority to muck up the true issue, confuse the people, spawn a discrediting hysteria and cast a shadow of uncertainty over the credibility of alternate media sources. (Who are usually the primary targets of this kind of activity)

 

Such Psy-ops can be compared to a form of sabotage and are often sent up as trial balloons. Their success is judged by the length of their "credibility" life span. They are often very effective and can do a huge amount of damage to a target in a very short amount of time.

 

With enough training and experience a person can begin to detect these frauds as they come out of the gate. One of the most common ones is the old gambit: "I have a friend who" etc.

 

Another favorite form of disinformation used by spooks (or their unwitting targets who are fed the envenomed apple) is the downright fraudulent alteration of formerly legitimate documents for poison-pen purposes. This may or may not be what has happened with the Kennebunkport "warning."

 

I urge you to judge for yourself by reading the disclaimer from the web site of one of the alleged "signers" of the now questionable statement...And remember, it is caveat lector when surfing the web.

 

If something doesn't seem quite right; if you sense a disconnect or a hole in the overall rationality of an article's logic...or if you have a little voice nagging you in the back of your head when you read something, you probably should listen to that voice! Take a second and skeptical look!

 

I will leave you with one last rather worrisome thought. Why is it that there appears to be such a sudden deluge of this kind of activity taking place on the Internet? Consider this...On the battlefield, a barrage usually covers some kind of movement somewhere or an impending assault.

 

It is important to remember that good psy-ops always contain a large percentage of truth...So, something big MAY well be in the works...and ... as Sleeping Beauty can attest, not all big, red, juicy apples are what the doctor ordered! Some of the most irresistible info "apples" out there in Internet land have a secret agenda and it is not always about improving your health!

 

So...(Once again) Keep your wits about you folks...There seems to be a rather odd disturbance in the Force as of late.

 

-Cliff Mickelson

 

***

 

Re: "The Kennebunkport Warning"***

 

PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY

 

To Whom It May Concern:

 

Each of us were approached during the rally at the Kennebunkport event on August 25, 2007, to sign a statement calling for the immediate impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney. Since then, the statement has been altered and posted on the internet, making it appear as if we have evidence that this administration will carry out a "false-flag terror operation."

 

None of us have such evidence, and therefore, none of us signed a statement stating that we do.

 

We wish the authors of the document well in continuing much needed investigations of all aspects of 9/11.

 

Signed:

 

Jamilla El-Shafei Cindy Sheehan Dahlia Wasfi Ann

www.liberatethis.com

 

 

Comment

From Webster Tarpley 

9-4-7

 

These unfortunate and confused comments ignore the decisive evidence on the other side. Most eloquent is the actual signed document, which is posted in facsimile here at Rense and all over the internet. Here we see the signatures of the four signers who now claim they never signed. The entire argument might well end here. But then, we have have the authoritative testimony of Laurie Dobson, on whose property in Kennebunkport Camp Alex was located. This can see seen at http://www.911blogger.com/node/10997, and also on the Daily Kos. I recommend that he consider this evidence in the framework of my "Kennebunport Reality Check," which should also be posted here shortly.

Much more important is the substantive question. Does the analysis in the Kennebunkport Warning correspond to reality? If it does, why would anyone from the peace movement refuse to sign this document? What is their substantive objection? There is a daily barrage of articles outlining the US war plan for Iran, reporting on how Cheney is pressing for air strikes against the Quds force of the Iranian Pasdaran. The Daily Kos has a report from an officer on an aircraft carrier in the Gulf which confirms that attacks are imminent. We know from Philip Giraldi in The American Conservative two years ago that the Cheney doctrine calls for a new 9/11, followed by air strikes against Iran. We know from Zbigniew Brzezinski's testimony on Feb 1. before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that there is an active scenario for a terrorist act in the United States to be blamed on Iran. More recently, we have Chertoff's gut feeling that a terror attack is imminent. What is there is the analysis offered by the Kennebunkport Warning that its critics find so offensive? Do they not see the danger of the wider war with Iran? Do they not believe Cheney would use false flag terrorist to get what he wants? If they cannot grasp these problems, they are simply not qualified to be taken seriously leaders of the antiwar movement under the grim conditions we face today.

How did Mickelson become an expert in this matter? Was he there? What is his special expertise? What is his special vested interest in this affair? If he does not like our anti-war mobilization, what kind of anti-war mobilization does he recommend? How does he propose to avoid a wider war and martial law? What has he been doing on this issue? Mickleson would be better off doing something to stop Cheney, rather than carping about Kennebunkport.