You are herecontent / Kennebunkport Warning

Kennebunkport Warning

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.

Jamilla El-Shafei
Cindy Sheehan
Dahlia Wasfi
Ann Wright

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Ploy targets

This is a ploy to put this individuals under Bush's direct control via his recent executive orders. It's trumped up "evidence."

Why would I do that to myself or anyone?


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?


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.


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.


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.



There's too much at stake, and too many sources from all over the world including Russia saying the same thing. Americans fell down on the job (so far) in allowing the shadow-government to dictate the who/what of 911 and the illegal Wars of Aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq in consequence to it. Anyone who has read PNAC knows these two countries are just "plots on a graph" to Iran and Global Imperial Hegemony.

Though every "signer" objecting above is a hero in the anti-war movement, the time has come to uncork the big lie at the center of the storm, both wars, habeas, torture, detention, Patriot Act and Economic Tyranny empowering it: The 911 Commission Report is a Criminal Fraud and Mass-Murder with the potential to permanently alter the world's geopolitical landscape toward Imperial Dictatorship!

Alarmist? One click of a button (ATT) and goodbye internet. There is no time to waste...


I held Camp Alex at my house, where the document was originally signed. I know most of the people involved, who signed. Most were campers at my house during the weekend rally. It started there.

I have tried to talk to the organizers, via one of their own, and they are frightened. I think this thing profiled them, unintentionally, by the appearance that they were the only signers. It put them into a position, in their eyes, that made them look like they had this thing in mind from the start. In fact, there were more of us who signed it first.

I can attest to the signing at my farm and I witnessed the signatures on the sheet at the rally, where I was at the rally tent where the signing was taking place later, by Cindy and the others, before the rally.

At the time that she and the others on her page of signers were signing, I observed it happening. Bruce showed me the list as it was being signed--he was happy that so many were willing to rise to the challenge, because it was a strong statement.

After seeing this petition/statement posted on the internet, a few of the signers became afraid that they would be 'wearing orange jumpsuits' because they signed the petition. I think they are being told that they will be targeted if they don't recant. This is unfortunate and unnecessary.

The answer is for more people to sign this statement and get it out there and back them up. We have enough evidence to act on our conscience to do what we can to avert a crisis; what we need is support for all the signers, who are out there being put in a position because of the charges that it was a forgery, which is untrue.

I attest to the fact that these were not falsified documents. They couldn't have been--the four signed pages were all identical and I saw all of them--the one I signed, the one my husband signed, the one the campers signed and the one that Cindy and the others signed.
Bruce did not have the time or the means by which to tamper with the documents during the times I saw them before, during and after they were signed at the rally event site, which is where the sheet was signed with Cindy's name on it and which occurred before people began marching.

Every page had the identical heading, which referred to the Kennebunkport Warning and they all said that we were opposition leaders, which I think was truthful, because I believe that anyone that is willing to sign a statement like that can consider themselves to be a leader in opposition.

I think that the original intent of this statement, which resonated with me and I think with others, too, was that we should do as we were encouraged at the rally to do, by Cindy Sheehan, when she inspired us by saying that we couldn't just sit back behind our computers--we had to DO something--meet Senators and engage in non-violent acts of civil disobedience.

I hope that whoever is pestering these four women who have backed off their statement will instead encourage them and walk with them in solidarity. There is relative safety in numbers, so they say.

I have actual proof that I can use to back up these statements. I respect these signers and look up to them and I don't want to put them into any further paranoia by producing this testimony which would further expose them--they are scared enough already. But I have it and I could show it to a reliable party, if it has to go that far to show that I am telling the truth.

I will continue to tell the truth and defend the legitimacy of this document, and not be cowed by accusations against those who carried these petitions. Tonight I read an email saying that I am being lumped into a group of people who are being 'divisive to the peace group' because I have refused to let these statements-- which have slandered Bruce and Jeanine-- stand without challenge. I feel it is my responsibility to vouch for what I saw and what I know, however, it is a drag that this is happening to good people on both sides.

Nevertheless, those who are accusing the petition bearers of falsifying the documents are acting dishonorably, considering their leadership positions, and they should heed the many requests to retract and/or modify their bald-faced assertion that these were not the original documents.

These are accusations of forgery and that is a very strong charge, and can't be made simultaneously with the admission that they didn't read the statement, which is what one of the 4 recanters told me. You can't be sure that you haven't signed what you admit you didn't read!

We are all leaders when we sign a document such as this. However, let's not assume that by being organizers of the rally, or leaders in the peace movement, that we are justified in denouncing other people for asking us to sign a statement that said more than we feel comfortable with, after re-reading it the next day, or want to put the blame on someone else because they posted the documents for others to read.

Instead, let us act as leaders by individually choosing the honorable high road. Above all, lets care about each other, tell the truth, and have fun! And please, let's stop being terrified!

Laurie Dobson

I personally believe that Cindy Sheehan and the anti-war activists are telling the truth. While I can not prove (at this time) that their signatures were forged on the document, I strongly believe that they were.

The primary reason why I believe they are telling the truth has to do with the fact that they are all claiming that they signed an alternative document. Now, if five individuals (presently, I have five) denied they did something, and all give the exact same story for what they did do, I believe this is a strong basis for believing that they are telling the truth.

Four of the individuals involved in this controversy have ties to Lyndon LaRouche, known for his anti-activist activities in the past.

I wish the best to the anti-war activists. I apologize to them for the actions of supposed members of the 9/11 truth movement.

Here is my investigation into the affair, which will be updated as new facts come to my attention:

Sincerely and best wishes,

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

. . . or it's hard to take it seriously.

Kim Hughes
123 7th Ave
Brooklyn, NY

I have signed it, but I am not on this blog site. Someone else made me appear as anonymous. My name is Laurie Dobson.

I just checked--you can see my name on my page: Laurie Dobson.

It's interesting. I didn't post this to your blog, but someone put it up. Then I am being told that I am not standing up and identifying myself, even though my name is right at the bottom. Who are you guys, that you put people on your blog without their permission to copy their comments? Just so that you can get more hits on your site? Not cool.
Laurie Dobson

From: kris4143@xxxx
To: "Jenny Sparks"
Subject: Re: The truth is never tiresome. Wink
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 16:36:29 +0000

Hi Jenny,

I got your email this morning, and find the whole matter unsettling.

Here is what I recall...

> 1: Do you consider yourselves "opposition leaders"? That is, being in

opposition to the neo-con regime generally, and the Bush administration

I am certainly in opposition to the Bush administration, but do not
myself a "leader" in any way, shape or form. I'm just an ordinary
schlub trying
to do what I can while struggling to keep myself and my family's
collective head above
water. I wish I had the freedom and/or resources to be a leader; but I
don't. I did not sign
the petition with the intention of signing on to the Kennebunk Warning,
which I did not even fully
read 'till we were at the rally. See below for more on this.

> 2: Were you in Kennebunkport, Maine, Aug 25-25, 2007?

Yes. I camped at Camp Alex Friday night, attended the rally and march,
and left
around 6 PM.

> 3: Did you sign anything while you were there?

Yes. That is my signature on the .jpg on the 911 blog site.

> 4: Was what you signed this document:

Here's where it gets a little sticky. We got in to Camp Alex at 11:45,
had to
move our car to the Ice Rink parking lot, and then set up our tents in
that deadly heat.
I got very little sleep, and we got up early to help Ms. Dobson with
breakfast and such.
The point being, I was a little groggy (a lot groggy actually) but this
is what I
remember. I recall signing which I thought was a call for impeachment,
which I fully support.
I DEFINITELY did NOT sign a paper with the Kennebunk Warning physically
on it. My memory is of
signing a piece of paper that simply had columns for signatures and
addresses, and perhaps a brief statement calling for impeachment at the
top. I find it
interesting that the top of the sheet I signed is covered up in the
.jpg that was provided
by Mr. Marshall. If I thought my signature was associated with anything
it was with the more general
Philadelphia Platform. I would not have knowingly signed the "warning"
as A. I am not, as previously
mentioned any sort of leader, and B. I have no such evidence whatever.
I personally feel
that while the Bush administration is certainly MORALLY capable of
orchestrating a
911 false flag attack, and that there are definitely unanswered
questions about 911,
I have seen no evidence which proves it to me. In short, while I am
committed to finding the truth, I'm not "there" yet, and as I stated
above, I have no
evidence relating to a Iran 'false flag' event whatever, though I
certainly would not put
it past them. As to Mr. Marshall, while I find his passion and
knowledge impressive, he seems
(based on our talk while waiting for the bus) to be of a sort that is
rather shrill and
didactic, and not terribly interested in listening to other more
nuanced opinions. I have,
however, no evidence as of this moment that he has committed fraud of
any kind,
but am submitting these slightly hazy recollections in the hope that
the truth
will emerge.

> 5: If so, what "massive evidence" had been brought to your attention
to make
you believe a false flag attack was imminent?

None. See above.

> 6: if your answer to 4 was "no", then what type of document did you
think you

See above.

Jenny, I appreciate your tone of genuine inquiry, and I hope that these
help in some way. I do not belong to the 911 Blog, and am on vacation
at the moment; you
may feel free to post my reply on the blog and attribute it to me, if
it will help.

Please keep me posted,


Visit for more updates:

-Jenny Sparks

Today, I will be publishing the emails I received from the Kport Peace Rally organizer, a signer of the Kport Warning on August 25, 2007.
These emails show what I have contended, which is that this signer had told me she did not read the warning which she signed and cannot, therefore, reliably maintain that her accusation of falsification of the document is true, since she cannot be certain of the contents of a document she admits that she signed without reading.
Laurie Dobson

I know Ann Wright from Veterans for Peace. If she says she didn't sign this statement, she didn't. Ann is a straight shooter and has proven both her physical and moral courage over and over again. Note that her rebuttal merely says that she personally does not have such evidence. She doesn't say that this can't happen. She also wishes the authors well in their continuing investigation. For Bruce Marshall to claim that, "you cannot be an antiwar leader and be an agnostic about this," and then to go on to accuse Cindy Sheehan, Ann Wright, and the others of being under the influence of the intelligence community is an old ploy of ego-trippers in the left who demand that everyone must agree with them, and become paranoid when everyone does not. The fact is that there is - and always has been - a great diversity of opinion within the left. We can continue to divide ourselves and let ourselves be conquered, or we can respect each others’ different views and discuss the issues without making unfounded accusations. I call upon Bruce Marshall to accept that others may honestly be agnostic or even have different views, yet still be as dedicated as himself to ending the war.

Mike Wong
Veterans for Peace, chapter 69.

This controversy is taking our attention away from what could otherwise be a concerted effort at collecting and evaluating important evidence. If it was a fraud they should claim that it was a fraud, but consider the possibility, and take the necessary measures to ensure that there isn't any potential evidence available, for if there is, you people must express your concern over your latest findings and ask questions, always ask questions.
Especially now that the U.S. has taken serious steps toward declaring war with Iran, it seems that pressures have been building and now there's a lot of potential for something out of the ordinary to occur. For example, a purposely designed provocation to go to war could be one possibility. This would not be an exaggerated claim especially after considering what happened with the attacks on the U.S.S. Liberty (a false flag operation intended to place blame on the enemy) or the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Or these recent acts of provocation:

Don't simply dismiss it by saying you don't have the evidence at hand, do some research on the matter. Those who have renounced signing the warning should give it second thought and should point out that they intend to seek out whether there is such evidence available or ask their audience to supply them with such evidence.

Here are some suspicious items worth investigating:

New York City Nuke Plot on NBC's "Heroes"-Lone Gunman?:

Malcolm Mcdowell explains how a nuclear explosion in New York will be
a "catalyst for good" for "change" "out of the ashes humanity will find a united sense of hope".
Eerily like the Lone gunman 'Pilot' episode predicting the attacks of 9/11:

Gop Head: We Need More 'attacks On American Soil', so people appreciate Bush:
Santorum Suggests New Terror Attacks Will Change View Of War:

$4.5b bet on another 9/11 within 4 weeks

Remember that as the events of 9/11 and the London 7/7 bombings were unfolding there were eerily similar drills being conducted by each respective government's military/security sectors. The drills were planned and designed in the months/weeks prior to the attack. They were performed as the actual attacks were taking place and they mimicked, almost identically, the exact same events that actually occurred the day of the attack. There is no doubt about it, the military/security sectors of both the British and U.S. government had known precisely what was to happen that day.

These articles indicate tell-tale signs of such (false flag) “preparation efforts” being made by the U.S. military once again under the guise of government Drills:
Terror Drill: Feds & State Respond To Nuke At OB:
Security experts to meet on preventing nuclear terrorism:
This is a link to my blog,
Laurie Dobson

Evidence for 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

So when is this false flag event supposed to take place? What is that I hear? Silence? Typical conspiracy theory crap.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Speaking Events

David Swanson in Fairbanks, Alaska, October 22, 2016.


Find Events Here.


Support This Site


Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.



Speaking Truth to Empire


Families United


Ray McGovern


Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.