Subject: My Advice
To George W. Bush, 3-23-06:
Obviously you only care about yourself, which should appall Americans knowing your actual job is to care about others. Apparently you’re a good actor (got reelected).
In case you really would like to hear the actual optimal solution from this point forward, thinking outside the box, it would be to put Saddam Hussein back in “puppet” charge of Iraq, since he was never lying to us. (Just open the cell, brush off his jacket, then say “sorry.”) That would prevent a lot more “American” deaths, etc., not to mention better leverage for peace in Iraq. But that would take an extraordinary admittance of an “error” from “one” man. You would be doing something that probably no other President has ever done. You would need to do it while he’s still alive; otherwise, that option will be gone and there can be no change for a grim future. I would have your advisors investigate some good excuses for you, e.g., how you were given the wrong information from your duressed Iraqi informants. Just don’t say they were under duress. Maybe you could ask the mothers of the American soldiers if this would be a good idea; then, say that’s why you’re doing it. I’m guessing Saddam Hussein would agree to it as long as you all worked “together” instead of against him, and both vowed to focus on what’s best for the Iraqi people. Give him back his big luxury, etc. – which was his property (before he didn’t lie). It should be easy for you to waive his killing of innocent civilian charges since you and your father killed many times more innocent Iraqi civilians (e.g., al-Saa restaurant and Amiriyah civilian shelter), not to mention “innocent” Iraqi soldiers (all), since Saddam was not lying. Saddam’s trial charges is now your meritless justification, but you don’t like kill thousands to save hundreds, even with today’s morals. (No, have the victims explain the differences to the American public.) (Saddam’s trial 1982 Dujail deaths were only about 140. I’m not saying that was right, I’m just saying we’re probably going to lose that many American soldiers in the next few months. Christ “assured” equal punishment for Saddam in his afterlife.)
I don’t really see this happening. I’m just saying it so I can tell others in the future that I said it. Plus, how can I personally tell God that I knew the best and fair option, but kept it to myself. Or, at least letting him out, and giving back his wealth would be “fair,” which could be enough of a goodwill gesture to lessen the violence. Show him the improvements you plan to make. Get his spoken endorsement on some or all of it. If you treat him like a human being, you probably can get that kind of stuff. You probably could have got him to give you the Iraqi government back in 2003 if you would have treated him like a human being, like I proposed you do back then. But your one man’s pride overruled. You’re not as bad as I thought: I assumed in 2003 if you didn’t find weapons of mass destruction, then you would have planted them, but you didn’t, so bravo! Although, I can’t believe you didn’t even think about the consequences if none were found. But in recollection, people might remember, you were adamantly determined to invade either way (ask all those other countries), which “overwhelmed” your thoughts at the time. And, the media did a good job erroneously hyping the evil of Saddam Hussein for twelve years prior, which also sort of supported your invasion plan. But, of course, they’ve turned on you, because it is easy for them to put all the blame on you. That’s just the way the hierarchy works. (You see, a true truth seeker like me is not gonna have any friends: all people are subjects of my unbiased criticism. God would not be my priority if I didn’t.)
http://www.answers.com/Iraqi%20insurgency, Iraqi insurgency:
“The Iraqi insurgency refers to the armed conflict between Coalition forces and Iraqi citizens, as well as some foreign persons.”
Can you grasp that you might not be doing your caring correctly when multitudes of “citizens” are against you? If you would have, instead, charmed Saddam Hussein into approving your 2003 “help,” might the “citizens” not be against you? Dropping the sanctions and doing more “for the citizens” of Iraq, is what I reiterated to the White House from 1998 to 2003. If you’d have done it my way, then it is very likely these continuing problems would not have occurred. There was an actual Clinton agreement to do so directly after my first White House fax of February 21, 1998, but it later became rescinded, likely by advisors who said it would not be a good idea to admit any kind of wrong (again, multitudes of problems just for one person’s pride).
Being the powerful nation that we are, in general, we have a tendency of treating other countries “unfairly.” (E.g., Kuwaiti “slant [diagonal] drilling” into Iraqi oil supplies.) “Faith alone” in today’s churches is the cause of this. If we, somehow, treated other countries “fairly” then these kinds of problems might not occur in the future. Contrary to many beliefs, I don’t think we’re ever going to see the day where victims are just going to let people walk all over them. You see, there’s a God placed emotion in us all that makes the victim desire the wrongdoer the same suffering. It works well with wild animals. Jesus, of course, attempts to overrule this emotion (Matt. 5:38-39) and tells people to “forgive” all trespasses by “assuring” us of fair afterlife judgment equal to the crime (down to the “last penny”: Matt. 5:23-26), so to de-escalate problems. Matt. 5:6 also guarantees “the multitudes” the same, if you change “righteousness” (cause “the money” wants it said that way) to the more correct original Greek translation word of “justice.” A small synonymous word error like this can cause much evil in our country. Without that Godly assurance, it would be impossible for true victims to forgive and not wish revenge against their wrongdoers. Therefore, this is a religious based problem. Again, from what I’ve seen since 1998, letting me define what’s fair and what’s not is still my only advice. Then the impossible “having to admit a wrong” would not be the only solution to future problems. You see, most everybody still defines the Golden Rule as what’s best for them, even though none of them actually think that’s their definition. But, of course, you’re not reading this to hear the sermon: you just want to know what’s good for you and your image. Well, all I can say is that the way things currently are, unless something reversibly happens, you will go down in future history books as the worst President ever; especially once your current biased supporters are dead and gone. You see, people of the future, who have nothing to gain or lose, are more free to tell is like it was. You are even now saying that the Iraq problem will be inherited to the next President … in 2009.
I’m aware that everybody is going to think my suggestion is “crazy”; but, again, the only reason is because the media spent over twelve years erroneously “embedding” into every American’s emotional mind that Saddam Hussein is extraordinarily evil. And since he personally is not today’s main issue, they have no desire to recant (unembed it). And everybody emotionally thinks exactly as the majority of their environment has them to think. So, I’ve “explained” why you all think the way you do.
2002:
U.S. Interrogators: You don’t understand: If you don’t give us the information we want, we can make things very unpleasant for you.
Iraqi “Informant”: Oh! O.K. You are correct. I was lying. Saddam has many nuclear and biological weapon programs. No, I don’t know where they are, but I know for sure that he has them.
Call to the President: Sir, we’ve got the information that you wanted.
Mr. Critical, the only true intelligence for the American soldier (believe it or not).
PS: Concerning the “graphic images” I emailed to you all earlier: I work for God, and God has to look at these “educational” images every day. God would prefer to not have to look at any more new ones. "A picture is worth ten thousand words" --Frederick R. Barnard, Printers' Ink, March 10, 1927 (from an old Chinese proverb). That's a lot of words. A lot of other people’s antiwar stuff is what is correctly called "far fetched." Mine is right down to the fully realistic nitty gritty. The “nitty gritty” is the best path to “the solution,” and, more importantly, for “future prevention.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitty_gritty, Nitty gritty:
Nitty gritty is a colloquial term for the real thing, the actual raw reality of the situation.
A “picture of reality” is better than “not a picture of reality.” What else would you like me to teach you all?
-- Home (Index) --