6-19-04 Bemerkungen über 1-18-02 Tatbestand
Vladimir has asked me to pretend that I was the American President at the time when the U.S. had to decide (around 2002) whether to go to war with Iraq. He told me that Russian intelligence (back in 2002) had discovered that the Jesuits were moving their forces into Iraq (because of Iraq’s Russian connections), in order to attack the U.S. and to frame Vladimir with my murder (through Jesuit-directed Iraqis)–and that this is why Pres. Bush decided to attack Iraq. The Jesuits probably wanted to insinuate that Vladimir would be motivated by money to attack me–that’s why Vladimir wanted to use Iraq (because Iraq owes Russia a lot of money) and because Russia has significant monetary interests in Iraq. Vladimir asked me to tell him what I would have done if I was in Pres. Bush’s shoes.
I did not have this information before, but now that I have this information–this is what I believe I would have done, if I was in Pres. Bush’s shoes.
First off, I would contact Pope John Paul II and confer with him to discover if he had any evidence that the Jesuits (and their Al-Qaeda movement) were moving into Iraq in order to attack the United States. I would not use any intelligence information from Russian intelligence (because this would further Jesuit conspiracy defenses).
Instead, I would try to get evidence from Vatican intelligence that the Jesuits (through their Al-Qaeda agents) are planning an attack on the United States through the country of Iraq. Once I got this evidence from Vatican intelligence that the Jesuit-directed Al-Qaeda movement was moving into Iraq, then I would make a special presentation on the major international networks to present this evidence, and I would let Pope John Paul II back up my assertions with his own statement–where the Pope would state that I (the American President) received this intelligence information from Vatican intelligence and that American intelligence backed up the information we had received from the Vatican.
I would educate the world about the history of the Jesuits and show evidence of connections between the Jesuits and the Al-Qaeda movement.
After the evidence had been presented on international television by myself and the Pope, then I would challenge the Iraqi government to disprove the Pope’s allegations and my allegations that the Jesuits are planning to use Iraq to attack the U.S. and I would invite the Iraqis to a courtroom battle (where the Pope and I would be the prosecutor and the Iraqi government and the Jesuits would be the defense).
We would accuse the Iraqi government (along with the Jesuits) of planning an attack on the U.S. and would challenge them to defend themselves against this accusation on international television in an international court broadcast. The attorneys on our prosecution team would be Roman Catholics or Muslims. The judge and the jury for this court proceeding would be Roman Catholics and Muslims. I’d make it about 50/50–about half of the judge(s) and/or the jury would be Muslims and half of the judge(s) and/or the jury would be Roman Catholics. Or I’d use VOTER JURORS from all over the world and I’d only use Muslims and Roman Catholics. These people would decide the verdict.
We would warn the Jesuits and their Iraqi cohorts, that if they didn’t show up for court on international television, that the U.S. would declare war on Iraq (with or without international approval) and the U.S. would attack Iraq in order to defend ourselves from an imminent attack by the Iraqis–because if the Iraqis were innocent they wouldn’t mind coming on international television to defend themselves in court.
We would also warn them that if they did show up for international broadcast court proceedings to defend themselves against our accusation–which is, that the Iraqis in collaberation with the Jesuits are planning an attack on the U.S. and that if WE WON OUR CASE and the evidence as decided in an INTERNATIONAL COURT OF LAW proves that Iraq (in collaberation with the Jesuits) are planning an attack on the U.S.–that we would declare war on Iraq, in order to defend ourselves from this imminent attack.
Once we won our court battle (and I’ve never lost a case yet), then we would assemble our international coalition to go in and attack Iraq. I would probably not try to influence any country and I wouldn’t campaign to get support from any country–since our court proceedings alone would show that the U.S. has justification for war with Iraq.
I may go on international television and make a statement that the U.S. (as a result of overwhelming evidence that the Jesuits through their Iraqi cohorts plan an imminent attack on the U.S.)–must declare war on Iraq, in order to defend our country. And then the U.S. would go to war against Iraq.
I wouldn’t waste my time with the U.N. at all (because Russia has too strong a representation in the U.N. and the Jesuits could use this against us), but I would use an international televised court broadcast where I would challenge the Jesuits and their Iraqi cohorts to defend themselves in international court about my accusation that they are planning an imminent attack on the U.S., and most or all the evidence that I would bring against the Iraqis and the Jesuits would come from the VATICAN.
More than likely some countries would join us, but I would not solicit support from any country. This way, it would minimize the appearance that the U.S. is in a conspiracy with any country to go to war against the Iraqis for their oil or some other base reason.
I would also make this statement. I would say that if any country chooses to join us in this war, that any oil that is recovered will go to the Iraqi people and that there will be no “spoils” to the victor–that in order to minimize any accusations that we are going into Iraq for monetary motives, we will insure that any “spoils” as a result of winning this war, will ALL GO TO THE IRAQIS–AND I WOULDN’T USE THE AMERICAN RED CROSS TO DIRECT THIS EFFORT–I WOULD CREATE MY OWN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION TO INSURE THAT ALL SPOILS FROM THIS WAR WOULD GO TO THE IRAQIS.
So, Vladimir, I have answered your question. With my legal prowess, I would choose a legal route to establish my defense for war and then (after the evidence about the Iraqi government was overwhelming) –I’D GO AFTER IRAQ without or with international approval. My guess is. . .by using this method, the U.S. would not be going in alone to get Iraq.
Behind the scenes, I would try to get Saudi Arabia and some Muslim countries to go in with us against Iraq–convincing them that the Jesuits are sabotaging the Muslim religion and that Iraq (with their Jesuit cohorts) will bring great disgrace to Muslims by her actions against the U.S. and that Muslims needed to defend their honor against the disgrace that Iraq (and her Jesuit cohorts) was about to bring to the Muslim religion. This does not mean I would immediately allow Iran or Saudi Arabia or another Muslim state to help us, but would test their loyalties to see if they are really on our side. Once I felt confident that a Muslim state would be a good partner, I would go into Iraq with that Muslim country as part of our coalition. I believe that using the court method above, I would be able to go into Iraq with an international coalition that would include at least one Muslim country–and that this would weaken the Jesuits’ strategy to make the war appear to be a war of the West against the Muslim religion.
The only countries I would court behind-the-scenes for my coalition would be countries like Saudi Arabia or Iran or some of the Muslim states. I would do this in order to show that my war is not against the Muslim religion.
Other countries (that are not Muslim countries) I wouldn’t bother with at all, but would let them decide on their own iniative to join the U.S. And when these other countries (that aren’t Muslim states) joined our coalition, I’d tell them to make a public statement that it was their own decision to join us and that they were not influenced at all by any persuasion from the U.S. in this decision, but decided this after viewing the evidence from our international court presentation and because of their good relationship with the U.S.
Electronically signed: Gail Chord Schuler
Place: Melbourne, FL