Bush's Iraq War is Already Lost

Stanley Hilton was a senior advisor to Sen Bob Dole (R) and has personally known Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz for decades. This courageous man has risked his professional reputation, and possibly his life, to get this information out to people.

SH: Our case is alleging that Bush and his puppets Rice and Cheney and Mueller and Rumsfeld and so forth, Tenet, were all involved not only in aiding and abetting and allowing 9/11 to happen but in actually ordering it to happen. Bush personally ordered it to happen. We have some very incriminating documents as well as eye-witnesses, that Bush personally ordered this event to happen in order to gain political advantage, to pursue a bogus political agenda on behalf of the neocons and their deluded thinking in the Middle East. I also wanted to point out that, just quickly, I went to school with some of these neocons. At the University of Chicago, in the late 60s with Wolfowitz and Feith and several of the others and so I know these people personally. And we used to talk about this stuff all of the time. And I did my senior thesis on this very subject - how to turn the U.S. into a presidential dictatorship by manufacturing a bogus Pearl Harbor event. So, technically this has been in the planning at least 35 years.

--------
I think above is very relevant to see why 9/11 happened and why Iraq war was waged by Bush and his Gang.

The is a thread discussing the interview at:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I suggest every people have a look at the interview, and think of Bush's irrational noncharlant reaction to attack in the Florida elementary school.

Every US people needs to connect the dots by him or her self, you can not expect CNN, FOX, NBC, ABC, CBS, or BBC to tell the truth behind 9/11. They are part of the millitary industrial complext.

It is for the interest of USA, and also for the interest of all people around the World.

It's hard to imagine the government ordering the attack, but it's definetly not impossible. I know at least that warnings were ignored, possibly intentionally, because they knew they would have an advantage pushing their corrupt agenda. But those of us who are not blind to the neo-con corruption, and see Bush for who he really is, can see the hate and evil in his eyes, the same hate that is clearly visible in the eyes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, these men claim to be Christian, but how can others not see just by watching them speak, the hate and anger they direct to any who oppose their views. It's disgusting and one must wonder how so many Americans buy into it.

Originally posted by zcheng
Stanley Hilton

Mr. Zcheng, in that that thread I asked if there was any evidence for the accusations hilton makes. No one answered (at least not so far). Have you seen any evidence to back his statements up?

Even after severe criticism Bush has never admitted that it was a mistake to invade IRAQ, he went on to rationalise that even though no WMD were found in IRAQ saddam was a bad dictator and deserved to die.
It is ironic that after 9/11 so many innocent people in afghanistan and iraq were killed because of his urgency to divert attention from his failures and their is no one to punish him for it while he punishes others!!
If it had not been for the complacency of his administration 9/11 would not have taken place at all.

After the invasion of IRAQ Bush said that it was actually saddam who was at fault as he "made them believe that he had WMD" when saddam had actually given the UN a dossier of all his military facilities before the war on IRAQ, yet the Bush administration said that saddam was lying and had not disclosed everything.
Even after the IAE reported to have found nothing, Bush vehmently said that he had proof that saddam had indeed WMD.
To top it off even Tony Blair (faithful side-kick) said that IRAQ could strike London in 40min, when in reality they couldn't even use their air force.

I think that both Bush and Blair conspired to invade IRAQ on the pretext of WMD and get their hands on a huge stocks of oil, thereby reducing oil prices domestically and being called as heros of Freedom in the process.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by zcheng
Stanley Hilton

Mr. Zcheng, in that that thread I asked if there was any evidence for the accusations hilton makes. No one answered (at least not so far). Have you seen any evidence to back his statements up?

This is his case, and he has the evidence. It will be shown in the court. Special agents has broken into his office and took incriminating documents. Fortunately he had a copy somewhere else. He got presurre to drop the case from the highest in Justice Ashcroft. Go read his interview, do not just cry evidence.

Originally posted by zcheng
he has the evidence.

ok, what is it then?

It will be shown in the court.

So if the evidence hasn't been presented then why do you beleive him?

Go read his interview, do not just cry evidence.

Uhm, i read part of the alex jones interview, it had nothing in it but unsupported assertions. Asking for reason to beleive his statements and evidence to back up his wild claims is hardly a fault.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Uhm, i read part of the alex jones interview, it had nothing in it but unsupported assertions. Asking for reason to beleive his statements and evidence to back up his wild claims is hardly a fault.

His evidence will be shown for all to see in court. I doubt whether the media will shown it to the US people.

Why do not not question why the justice presure him to drop the case, and sent spies to pillage his office?

Originally posted by zcheng
His evidence will be shown for all to see in court.

Ok, so in the meantime he is making statements without backing them up.

I doubt whether the media will shown it to the US people.

So now alex jones is part of the media conspiracy?

Why do not not question why the justice presure him to drop the case, and sent spies to pillage his office?

Why beleive any of his statements at all? He says someone ransacked his office? Well, apparently this guy says lots of stuff without backing it up. Why beleive anything he says?

[edit on 19-9-2004 by Nygdan]

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by zcheng
His evidence will be shown for all to see in court.

Ok, so in the meantime he is making statements without backing them up.

I doubt whether the media will shown it to the US people.

So now alex jones is part of the media conspiracy?

Why do not not question why the justice presure him to drop the case, and sent spies to pillage his office?

Why beleive any of his statements at all? He says someone ransacked his office? Well, apparently this guy says lots of stuff without backing it up. Why beleive anything he says?

I think his case is credible, because we saw Bush unexplainable on the 9/11 in Florida, the apparent demolition of Twin tower, the standdown of NORAD, etc. His case explains all those observation. I hope we will see his evidence soon, and that he will not "accidentally" killed.

I do not accept all his accusations or his evidences. I am wondering why you can deny all his evidence, when he has not yet presented his case. At least you should accept that there is such a possibility, though the final conclusion can only be made when he presents his full load of evidence and witnesses.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

All cowards tell the same story--if only, I would. Your country has been invaded.

How's the country been invaded? Lemme guess, 9/11? Sorry, I don't believe party line on 9/11, for reasons you may or may not agree with. Key among them:

No trial for any 9/11 crime, ever, anywhere in the world, so absolutely no independent verification of a guilty party.

The mass profits from undisputable pre-knowledge of the attacks were never investigated.

Cui bono?

Originally posted by zcheng
I think his case is credible, because we saw Bush unexplainable on the 9/11 in Florida

His reaction didn't seem too unexplainable to me

, the apparent demolition of Twin tower,

I have seen the cliam that the towers were demolished, I don't agree with it.

Since I don't agree with these conclusions, I guess I'll just have to wait until he decides to reveal his information in his court case. So I'll have to wait. Again. For evidence.

I do not accept all his accusations or his evidences. I am wondering why you can deny all his evidence,

Uhm, I am not disputing anythign his evidence says, because he has not presented it.

when he has not yet presented his case.

So you want me to accept his conclusions before his arguements are made and evidence presented? Why?

At least you should accept that there is such a possibility,

When did I say anything was immpossible?

though the final conclusion can only be made when he presents his full load of evidence and witnesses.

And until then a rational person can only accept that the US governement didn't do 911.

[edit on 19-9-2004 by Nygdan]

Originally posted by Nygdan

And until then a rational person can only accept that the US governement didn't do 911.

Why not?

The Federal government is not a homogenous entity.

Project for a New American Century repeatedly said that America needs a Pearl Harbor to get her going.

"The Global Chessboard," a book Cheney has often cited, repeatedly says America would need a new Pearl Harbor to start work on its 21st Century geopolitical goals.

"The US government's" claim of who perpetrated 9/11 came from a tiny group of politicians. Not an independent source.

Until we see some objective analysis of the situation, I see no reason to believe a thing they say except the self-assuring thought that our dear leaders are incapable of attacking us.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Until we see some objective analysis of the situation, I see no reason to believe a thing they say except the self-assuring thought that our dear leaders are incapable of attacking us.

Bin laden and al-qaida declared war on the us several times, attacked the cole, an the embassies. The only eveidence ever presented has been evidence that supports they did it.

The USA had lost the war when they decided to lauch the war without authorization of the UN. The president of USA lies. He said the iraq had the mass destructive weapons. but we not found till now. The number of soliders have been killed was over 1000.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
You can only call it a fiasco because you believe the lies of our enemies. Every war, every battle, every firefight looks like is a fiasco, until things begin to fall together. With people like you, America would have never won any war. Every island taken in the Pacific cost thousands of US lives, but they were won because we battled on.

The blood of those who die in Iraq today is on the hands of those who will not support the effort they die for. Now is the time for Americans to stand up and support those who give their all to make sure there are no more 9/11's and everytime an American denigrates that effort it deteriorates the morale of our nation.

Ask zcheng. That's his goal and you are his fellow travellers.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Until we see some objective analysis of the situation, I see no reason to believe a thing they say except the self-assuring thought that our dear leaders are incapable of attacking us.

Bin laden and al-qaida declared war on the us several times, attacked the cole, an the embassies. The only eveidence ever presented has been evidence that supports they did it.

Just like 9/11 is very likely the work of US government, or at least has the blessing of Bush/Cheney.

Those Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden are also likely controlled by the same group, and wage false flag operations in time of need. When you control both the black and white side, it is much easier to control the flow of events. I bet there will be big terror attack in US or Europe before Nov. Election.

False Flag operation should be seem like real for the public to accept.

Originally posted by zcheng
Just like 9/11 is very likely the work of US government, or at least has the blessing of Bush/Cheney.

Uhhm, no. You seem to have a strange definitition of 'likely', such that it seems to mean its opposite.

Those Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden are also likely controlled by the same group,

Again, why are they 'likely' controlled by the same group? How did this group get bin laden to go along with it? They also did the bombing of the cole and the US embassies? Aer you actually going to pretend that there aren't international arab terrorists?

When you control both the black and white side, it is much easier to control the flow of events.

How does it being easier mean that its more likely?

I bet there will be big terror attack in US or Europe before Nov. Election.

Wow, brilliant prediction.

See, all you're doing is saying that al-qaida may infact be run by the us government or someone else might run both. Sure, its possible, almost anything is possible. Maybe the same people run the chinese governement. Maybe the nazis really won WWII. Maybe anything. Do you have any evidence to support this statement or not? What evidence indicates that bin laden is an agent of the US governement?

Originally posted by Nygdan

Maybe the nazis really won WWII. Maybe anything. Do you have any evidence to support this statement or not? What evidence indicates that bin laden is an agent of the US governement?

Bin Laden was a documented recipient of US aid during his fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan along with all the other mujahadeen Arabs fighting the infidels.

The explanation that Al-Qaida is the terrorist organization that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks has come from the mouths of a few politicians, and has never been independently verified by a single trial, or supported by independent evidence.

I have no reason to believe the government, whatsoever.

Simply out of the blue, I'm being asked to believe that two guys with 0 hours of real flight time can pilot a 110,000 pound, fully-loaded 757 moving 530 knots down the face of a shallow hill, then level out, fly 10 feet above an overpass, and 25 feet off the ground, and hit a 50-foot tall target, aka the side of the Pentagon.

Interesting...

[edit on 20-9-2004 by taibunsuu]

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Bin Laden was a documented recipient of US aid during his fight against the Soviet occupation

Where is this documented? I have considered that this should be likely, considering the US funded and supplied other mujahediners, but they claim to specifically not funded bin laden, and he was certainly wealthy enough to be able to do it on his own, plus he seems to rather dislike americans, and probably wouldn't accept aide from the US if he needed it.

The explanation that Al-Qaida is the terrorist organization that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks has come from the mouths of a few politicians, and has never been independently verified by a single trial, or supported by independent evidence.

Are you also saying that they didn't commit the cole bombing and the twin embassy bombings? That they haven't done anything? That the taliban didn't exist? Moussaoi is under trial right now, and the governement seems to prefer to extract information from al-qaida detainees rather then bring them to trail.

aka the side of the Pentagon.

Is that the major problem with it? Also, did they have to fly 25 feet off the ground and hit it excatly where they did? Any hit on it would've served the purpose, the specific one that happened wasn't necessarily the path they were aiming for?

Manufacturer of the Barret .50-cal sniper rifle had reciepts and docs from 1989 that said they provided Osama bin Laden specifically, by name with these weapons. The CIA claims it's false, but I don't see why not considering OBL's role in Al Qaeda at the time as a supplier, logistician and organizer, Barret's lack of motivation for falsely announcing it supplied OBL, the fact the CIA through the ISI was supplying the jihadis with these weapons, and the fact that it doesn't make good PR for the CIA and the US in the sensitive minds of the public who can't wrap their brains around the fact that sometimes allies can become enemies.

Cole bombing was well-documented attack by AQ and the trials presented unbelievable amounts of evidence for conviction. On the other hand, there has been no trial for any 9/11-related criminal except for the aborted trial of Zacharia Moussaoui in the US, and the German trial and acquital of Mounir el-Motassadeq. In both cases the US did not allow interned witnesses for the defense to testify.

Moussaoui's trial was just sent back to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. His defense contends that enemy combatants held at undisclosed locations in the US are key to proving his innocence. The US government says the interrogations of these witnesses cannot be disturbed and are key to preventing new terrorist attacks. It will be difficult for the US government to deny witnesses to the accused without looking as if they are hiding information. Besides, that's simply not a fair trial, and given the seriousness of the charges it seems important that the truth is found without a hasty rush to verdict.

If that was really the hijackers' first time in a live Boeing 757 loaded with enough fuel to fly over 50 passengers from Dulles to LAX, then they had astronomical amounts of luck.

But what's more interesting to me than these incidents, except for the dirth of trials and convictions in what must be dozens of accomplices, are the billions made on insider trading on the attacks that were never investigated because the US government determined it would be too difficult a trail to follow.

Anyway, if the possibility of a conspiracy in 9/11 interests you, check out www.fromthewilderness.com... There's more information there for you to read and decide than I could type or link in 20 years.