bigjon
04-01-2003, 10:57 AM
All articles written by Jon Rappoport
Reload your screen often to get the latest stories.
NO MORE FAKE NEWS IS BACK!!!
THE REAL NEWS REPORTED EVERY DAY!
ALL ARTICLES BY JON RAPPOPORT
WHERE IS THIS WAR GOING? A MAJOR INTERVIEW
April 1. Recently I published an interview with an intelligence source about the then-upcoming war. At the time, he predicted that the ground battles would bog down the US and British troops.
Here are some new remarks he offered.
Q: The US is sending in new elite units. What is your assessment of their value?
A: All I can say is this immediate period is crucial. The combination of sand and heat and depleted uranium is going to take its toll. After this war is over, you are going to see a whole new level of what was called Gulf War Syndrome.
Q: That term covers a lot.
A: It does. It involves all manner of factors, including vaccine effects and the uranium.
Q: Could we see Bush try to declare a victory and order troops out of much of Iraq before it's really over?
A: I believe I said or implied that the last time we talked. Yes, that could happen, especially if the Pentagon says all the oil fields are secured. But leaving the rest of the country to its fate presents many problems.
Q: Is there a great deal of blame going around at the White House and the Pentagon and the CIA?
A: You better believe it. As you have been saying, the war planners knew from the beginning that there were going to be a lot more casualties than advertised. But beyond that, estimates of how long certain phases of the campaign would last---they are already seeing those estimates were overoptimistic. There is some panic growing in the White House. Bush realizes he was given incorrect estimates.
Q: Is he in a position to deal with this?
A: He is a very limited man. He operates on a narrow range of options. It's like a minor PR man who finds that his rhetoric is not backed up by facts. He has very little maneuvering room. He starts repeating his own cliches, and as time passes they sound more and more stale.
Q: Could the whole US advance in Iraq collapse?
A: Yes. I'm not ready to predict that yet, but it could happen.
Q: If that does occur, who benefits?
A: The European Union [EU] for one. When a few key European countries refused to back Bush, you could see their position. One, they had large trade and business deals with Iraq, and they wanted Iraq to remain under Saddam. That was the economic stability they wanted---not a major war. Two, since the EU and the US have been involved in an economic war for some time, the EU could imagine the US suffering serious blows in the war---and that would accrue to the benefit of the EU. Third, the EU wants their currency to become the basis for global oil transactions. Saddam went from the US dollar to the Euro in 1999. So in a sense, he is their partner. And fourth, well, I'm still mulling over that one.
Q: What is it?
A: Bush---let's call it the White House and the State Department at the moment---this is still a little unclear to me----they are negotiating---and this is mind-boggling---with the EU and the World Trade Organization [WTO] to open up state services in the US like electric and water companies to much greater foreign ownership.
Q: European ownership, for example.
A: Yes. Private European companies. But in some cases those companies are partly owned or financially backed by European governments.
Q: So you could get a power company that supplies electricity to a whole state like Ohio or part of Ohio being sold off to a European company which is really a partner with a European government.
A: Yes. And these WTO/EU negotiations appear to be on the verge of making such transfers of ownership a lot easier.
Q: How?
A: By removing blocks. Blocks such as, say, the state government of Ohio not wanting to put the electricity utility of the state up for grabs. Iowa is really a better example.
Q: Okay. But what you're now talking about---this would seem to make Bush people and the EU allies in hoodwinking America into transferring a great deal of American-owned resources to Europe.
A: I know.
Q: In which case, on the one hand we have this war in Iraq, where the EU is really hoping for a further weakening of the US. The EU and the US are enemies. And then, through the back door, we have this whole other economic deal going on, in which the US government---or some significant part of it---is capitulating to the EU.
A: Yes.
Q: What do you make of that?
A: Start with the idea that both situations result, or may result, in a weakening of the US. Especially if this war in Iraq goes very badly, in military terms, for the US.
Q: Okay. I can see that.
A: Then ask yourself, where did all this start? By all this, I mean the war against Iraq. What was the recent provocation?
Q: 9/11.
A: That's right. That is what has been used to draw a straight line to Saddam. Well, not a straight line, but a line. Bush took that bait. It was obvious he would.
Q: What do mean by bait?
A: Remember, not long after 9/11, when some people were saying that a massive US retaliation would be playing right into bin Laden's hands? Would give him exactly what he wanted?
Q: Yes.
A: Well, substitute for bin Laden some other people?
Q: Which other people? The EU?
A: Yes, but not only the EU. I'm really talking about those people who are behind all the forces of globalization. The EU is one part of that.
Q: You should define what you mean by globalization in this context.
A: I mean the plan to make the whole world into a collection of weakened non-sovereign nations that would ultimately be ruled or managed by a small clique that NEEDS, above all, a weakened US for its plan to succeed.
Q: You are not talking about a clique that is either left or right, politically speaking.
A: Correct. Both the left and the right, if they would stop their ideological trains for a moment, would see that they both share a fear of globalist management.
Q: So you are saying that Bush and his cronies were suckered into this war in Iraq by 9/11?
A: It looks that way to me. Yes. Now, if this war turns into some kind of military triumph for the US, then the sucker trap didn't work. But there are a lot of scenarios one can see in which the war will not be that kind of triumph for the US. There are many places along the way where things can go very wrong. We are seeing some of those places already. Another major place is the so-called post-war occupation of Iraq.
Q: You believe that 9/11 was planned and executed as a provocation to draw Bush into where he already wanted to go. Iraq.
A: Right.
Q: So then, this WTO/EU negotiation that is going on right now---the one that could place lots of utility companies in the US in the hands of foreign investors---you see this as part of the same plan to weaken the US.
A: I do.
Q: If Bush is really the dupe here, if he is being drawn into a course that will weaken the US against his own will, why would he support the obvious meaning of these WTO negotiations? Any fool could see---
A: Not so fast. Bush has been programmed for many years to support this sort of economic globalization. He doesn't equate that with a loss of US power. He thinks that, in the long run, American economic might will come to the fore and become the de facto leadership of globalization. That belief is part of his programming.
Q: So you're saying that some very powerful globalists have profiled Bush to a T.
A: Yes. Absolutely. They have read him. Closely. They see how he operates with seeming contradictions in play in his make-up. This profiling, done well, is a standard part of good intelligence work.
Q: Do you think that the grand old man of globalism, David Rockefeller, whose Towers were destroyed on 9/11, sacrificed his own vision of steel and glass to the kind of covert cause you're describing here? The weakening of the US in an ensuing war in Iraq, for example?
A: I can't verify that, but I've been thinking about it for over a year now.
Q: I find it somewhat curious that, since 9/11, Rockefeller has made no statements I can find on the destruction of his Towers.
A: Yes. You know that they were nicknamed Nelson and David, the twin Towers, for the Rockefeller brothers. You know that the Towers were David's dream. He was the original driving force. The idea that, as you say, he consciously offered them up as a sacrifice to a plan for weakening the US and strengthening the globalist agenda---this has a certain resonance, doesn't it? David is a vitally interesting study. He is not really a fan of the US at all. He thinks it has been the cowboy in the world, the most dangerous force around. He set up the Trilateral Commission in 1973, which was basically a plan to hijack US foreign policy and put it in the hands of "far more responsible people." People from several different countries, including Germany. The German Trilateralists were major players. David was also a driving force in the CFR [Council on Foreign Relations]. Another group that was devoted to placing America under the umbrella of what we would now call globalist management. Rockefeller money has been very active in funding research on "population control."
Q: "Here, take my twin Towers, my dream. I sacrifice them for the cause. Let their destruction set in motion a chain of events that will bring the militant cowboy America to its knees, so that it can take its place as just another nation, another jewel in the belt of the global managers." It has a ceremonial ring to it, doesn't it?
A: Yes. Reminds you of some ritual in a secret society.
Q: That's not an off-hand remark you're making, is it?
A: No.
Q: There are many people who would say, "Good. Let's snip off the limbs of America. It's far too dangerous a country in this modern world."
A: Of course. But just what America are they really talking about? The one that was established by the Constitution, or the one that emerged after that Constitution had been gutted in so many ways, long ago?
Q: Bush certainly wants the oil in Iraq.
A: That was part of the bait. Bush can think maybe one level below the surface of things, and like all such people, he has become a little infatuated with what he sees as his own powers of insight. For him the oil is that one level below the surface. But all good intelligence operations of large magnitude have a number of levels. As as you probe those levels in this situation, you come to a place where Bush becomes the dupe. Closer to the surface, he is the antagonist, the one-dimensional warrior, if you will. But deeper down, he is the patsy.
Q: How do you reconcile this with the fact that the Bush family has a history of connections to the Nazis?
A: The Bush family history reveals, I believe, that they have been in the ballpark of planetary-control designs, they have been playing with the big boys, but they have never quite made it into the CORE of power, in that regard. They have always been a little on the outside, looking in. It's matter of degrees. And now the son, the president, is a pawn in a game that he absolutely does not control.
Q: You say that as if you believe that somewhere someone is laughing up his sleeve at the role the president has been put in.
A: That's true. I do think that. It's not exactly revenge. It's more like playing yet another joke on the family that always strove too hard to get in the door of the big mansion where the elite of the elite lived.
Q: How would you assess what some say is the militant end-times philosophy of the president?
A: It has been taken into account in the profile that was done on him. It was known that his "religious re-birth" could work to the advantage of those who were setting him up to go into Iraq. He would respond on the basis of his view of the world according to his religious convictions.
Q: Lots of pieces in this situation.
A: Contrary to what some people think, not every intelligence operation is bumbled in the manner of some CIA projects. Some operations are very well calculated.
Q: Unless we see the nuclear option exercised.
A: There are people who have been placed in the Pentagon to prevent that.
Q: But do they have iron-clad control?
A: Absolute iron-clad control? No. I would say no.
Q: Do you have very good links that trace the origins of Rockefeller money?
A: I'm not ready to make a definitive judgment there. But so far, it looks to me that certain European rivers flowed into the Rockefeller coffers. If Rothschild money was a major river, and I suspect it was, you could make a case that you're going all the way back to Vatican money.
Q: Because the Rothschilds were, let's call it, money managers for the Vatican?
A: Yes.
Q: In that case, would you go on to trace that Vatican money back to the Knights Templar, the old military and banking group set up by the Vatican? And if so, would you then follow the Templar money to very old London banking institutions?
A: Mostly yes and yes to both your questions. But when you compare the London money to the Vatican money, you're faced with a choice. Which force is really the higher one on the ladder?
Q: And?
A: There is definitely some competition there. But all in all, I would rate the Vatican higher on the ladder.
Q: Where does that put the current Pope's recent hand-wringing over the war in Iraq?
A: That's a complete farce. Of course, the Pope is not in on any of these high-level machinations. He is, in his own way, the Bush of the Vatican. The true control of the Vatican has, for centuries, been in the hands of a militant group. This does not nullify anyone's personal belief in, say, the Holy Trinity. That heavenly structure is far outside what the controlling force inside the Vatican has been up to.
Q: So if we are talking about a flow of huge monies from the Vatican through the Rothschilds and through London---and then, in part, down to the Rockefellers...
A: The common denominator is that all these groups have wanted and want what we now call global management.
Q: A planet weakened and unified under what is really a ruling clique.
A: Yes. A clique secreted behind a bulging bureaucracy. Many bureaucracies.
Q: Comunism, radical socialism, Nazism, fascism, globalism, dictatorship, state corporatism, theocracy, monarchy...
A: All names for fronts, behind which lies a very cold-hearted group that exercises CNTROL over the many.
Q: With no ideology.
A: None.
JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
DUD
March 31. Look for that word to come up soon. Maybe during the war, if the censors can't stop it. Or after the war.
It means DEPLETED URANIUM DUST.
The tons of it that were left there during the first US invasion, in 1991. The tons that are being deposited there now, surely, by the forces of the second invasion.
It's a killer. It causes cancer and liver and kidney failure and severe immune suppression and birth defects and chronic infections.
There was a row about it several years ago, and then the mainstream press, assured by experts that it was a non-issue made out of rumor, moved on to other stories.
Several researchers are pointing out that inhaling---that is, breathing---in the middle of sand storms is a good way of bringing DUD into the body.
This is another issue on which the Pentagon and the US National Institutes of Health and the CDC are silent.
If three people on the same street die within a two-week period in Tucson, the CDC has 20 doctors on the scene measuring every human parameter, to "find the new virus." But are there CDC drones out in the deserts of Iraq, where shells were and are leaving DUD, figuring out what is going to happen to all those troops in the next little while?
No, of course not. The CDC picks their little glamour spots, and leaves the real work behind.
Support our soldiers?
Tell you what, Mr. and Mrs. America. This is no football game. This isn't NASCAR. Unless those drivers are moving through uranium clouds on the track striving to find out who will live the longest and sire the fewest deformed children.
JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
Reload your screen often to get the latest stories.
NO MORE FAKE NEWS IS BACK!!!
THE REAL NEWS REPORTED EVERY DAY!
ALL ARTICLES BY JON RAPPOPORT
WHERE IS THIS WAR GOING? A MAJOR INTERVIEW
April 1. Recently I published an interview with an intelligence source about the then-upcoming war. At the time, he predicted that the ground battles would bog down the US and British troops.
Here are some new remarks he offered.
Q: The US is sending in new elite units. What is your assessment of their value?
A: All I can say is this immediate period is crucial. The combination of sand and heat and depleted uranium is going to take its toll. After this war is over, you are going to see a whole new level of what was called Gulf War Syndrome.
Q: That term covers a lot.
A: It does. It involves all manner of factors, including vaccine effects and the uranium.
Q: Could we see Bush try to declare a victory and order troops out of much of Iraq before it's really over?
A: I believe I said or implied that the last time we talked. Yes, that could happen, especially if the Pentagon says all the oil fields are secured. But leaving the rest of the country to its fate presents many problems.
Q: Is there a great deal of blame going around at the White House and the Pentagon and the CIA?
A: You better believe it. As you have been saying, the war planners knew from the beginning that there were going to be a lot more casualties than advertised. But beyond that, estimates of how long certain phases of the campaign would last---they are already seeing those estimates were overoptimistic. There is some panic growing in the White House. Bush realizes he was given incorrect estimates.
Q: Is he in a position to deal with this?
A: He is a very limited man. He operates on a narrow range of options. It's like a minor PR man who finds that his rhetoric is not backed up by facts. He has very little maneuvering room. He starts repeating his own cliches, and as time passes they sound more and more stale.
Q: Could the whole US advance in Iraq collapse?
A: Yes. I'm not ready to predict that yet, but it could happen.
Q: If that does occur, who benefits?
A: The European Union [EU] for one. When a few key European countries refused to back Bush, you could see their position. One, they had large trade and business deals with Iraq, and they wanted Iraq to remain under Saddam. That was the economic stability they wanted---not a major war. Two, since the EU and the US have been involved in an economic war for some time, the EU could imagine the US suffering serious blows in the war---and that would accrue to the benefit of the EU. Third, the EU wants their currency to become the basis for global oil transactions. Saddam went from the US dollar to the Euro in 1999. So in a sense, he is their partner. And fourth, well, I'm still mulling over that one.
Q: What is it?
A: Bush---let's call it the White House and the State Department at the moment---this is still a little unclear to me----they are negotiating---and this is mind-boggling---with the EU and the World Trade Organization [WTO] to open up state services in the US like electric and water companies to much greater foreign ownership.
Q: European ownership, for example.
A: Yes. Private European companies. But in some cases those companies are partly owned or financially backed by European governments.
Q: So you could get a power company that supplies electricity to a whole state like Ohio or part of Ohio being sold off to a European company which is really a partner with a European government.
A: Yes. And these WTO/EU negotiations appear to be on the verge of making such transfers of ownership a lot easier.
Q: How?
A: By removing blocks. Blocks such as, say, the state government of Ohio not wanting to put the electricity utility of the state up for grabs. Iowa is really a better example.
Q: Okay. But what you're now talking about---this would seem to make Bush people and the EU allies in hoodwinking America into transferring a great deal of American-owned resources to Europe.
A: I know.
Q: In which case, on the one hand we have this war in Iraq, where the EU is really hoping for a further weakening of the US. The EU and the US are enemies. And then, through the back door, we have this whole other economic deal going on, in which the US government---or some significant part of it---is capitulating to the EU.
A: Yes.
Q: What do you make of that?
A: Start with the idea that both situations result, or may result, in a weakening of the US. Especially if this war in Iraq goes very badly, in military terms, for the US.
Q: Okay. I can see that.
A: Then ask yourself, where did all this start? By all this, I mean the war against Iraq. What was the recent provocation?
Q: 9/11.
A: That's right. That is what has been used to draw a straight line to Saddam. Well, not a straight line, but a line. Bush took that bait. It was obvious he would.
Q: What do mean by bait?
A: Remember, not long after 9/11, when some people were saying that a massive US retaliation would be playing right into bin Laden's hands? Would give him exactly what he wanted?
Q: Yes.
A: Well, substitute for bin Laden some other people?
Q: Which other people? The EU?
A: Yes, but not only the EU. I'm really talking about those people who are behind all the forces of globalization. The EU is one part of that.
Q: You should define what you mean by globalization in this context.
A: I mean the plan to make the whole world into a collection of weakened non-sovereign nations that would ultimately be ruled or managed by a small clique that NEEDS, above all, a weakened US for its plan to succeed.
Q: You are not talking about a clique that is either left or right, politically speaking.
A: Correct. Both the left and the right, if they would stop their ideological trains for a moment, would see that they both share a fear of globalist management.
Q: So you are saying that Bush and his cronies were suckered into this war in Iraq by 9/11?
A: It looks that way to me. Yes. Now, if this war turns into some kind of military triumph for the US, then the sucker trap didn't work. But there are a lot of scenarios one can see in which the war will not be that kind of triumph for the US. There are many places along the way where things can go very wrong. We are seeing some of those places already. Another major place is the so-called post-war occupation of Iraq.
Q: You believe that 9/11 was planned and executed as a provocation to draw Bush into where he already wanted to go. Iraq.
A: Right.
Q: So then, this WTO/EU negotiation that is going on right now---the one that could place lots of utility companies in the US in the hands of foreign investors---you see this as part of the same plan to weaken the US.
A: I do.
Q: If Bush is really the dupe here, if he is being drawn into a course that will weaken the US against his own will, why would he support the obvious meaning of these WTO negotiations? Any fool could see---
A: Not so fast. Bush has been programmed for many years to support this sort of economic globalization. He doesn't equate that with a loss of US power. He thinks that, in the long run, American economic might will come to the fore and become the de facto leadership of globalization. That belief is part of his programming.
Q: So you're saying that some very powerful globalists have profiled Bush to a T.
A: Yes. Absolutely. They have read him. Closely. They see how he operates with seeming contradictions in play in his make-up. This profiling, done well, is a standard part of good intelligence work.
Q: Do you think that the grand old man of globalism, David Rockefeller, whose Towers were destroyed on 9/11, sacrificed his own vision of steel and glass to the kind of covert cause you're describing here? The weakening of the US in an ensuing war in Iraq, for example?
A: I can't verify that, but I've been thinking about it for over a year now.
Q: I find it somewhat curious that, since 9/11, Rockefeller has made no statements I can find on the destruction of his Towers.
A: Yes. You know that they were nicknamed Nelson and David, the twin Towers, for the Rockefeller brothers. You know that the Towers were David's dream. He was the original driving force. The idea that, as you say, he consciously offered them up as a sacrifice to a plan for weakening the US and strengthening the globalist agenda---this has a certain resonance, doesn't it? David is a vitally interesting study. He is not really a fan of the US at all. He thinks it has been the cowboy in the world, the most dangerous force around. He set up the Trilateral Commission in 1973, which was basically a plan to hijack US foreign policy and put it in the hands of "far more responsible people." People from several different countries, including Germany. The German Trilateralists were major players. David was also a driving force in the CFR [Council on Foreign Relations]. Another group that was devoted to placing America under the umbrella of what we would now call globalist management. Rockefeller money has been very active in funding research on "population control."
Q: "Here, take my twin Towers, my dream. I sacrifice them for the cause. Let their destruction set in motion a chain of events that will bring the militant cowboy America to its knees, so that it can take its place as just another nation, another jewel in the belt of the global managers." It has a ceremonial ring to it, doesn't it?
A: Yes. Reminds you of some ritual in a secret society.
Q: That's not an off-hand remark you're making, is it?
A: No.
Q: There are many people who would say, "Good. Let's snip off the limbs of America. It's far too dangerous a country in this modern world."
A: Of course. But just what America are they really talking about? The one that was established by the Constitution, or the one that emerged after that Constitution had been gutted in so many ways, long ago?
Q: Bush certainly wants the oil in Iraq.
A: That was part of the bait. Bush can think maybe one level below the surface of things, and like all such people, he has become a little infatuated with what he sees as his own powers of insight. For him the oil is that one level below the surface. But all good intelligence operations of large magnitude have a number of levels. As as you probe those levels in this situation, you come to a place where Bush becomes the dupe. Closer to the surface, he is the antagonist, the one-dimensional warrior, if you will. But deeper down, he is the patsy.
Q: How do you reconcile this with the fact that the Bush family has a history of connections to the Nazis?
A: The Bush family history reveals, I believe, that they have been in the ballpark of planetary-control designs, they have been playing with the big boys, but they have never quite made it into the CORE of power, in that regard. They have always been a little on the outside, looking in. It's matter of degrees. And now the son, the president, is a pawn in a game that he absolutely does not control.
Q: You say that as if you believe that somewhere someone is laughing up his sleeve at the role the president has been put in.
A: That's true. I do think that. It's not exactly revenge. It's more like playing yet another joke on the family that always strove too hard to get in the door of the big mansion where the elite of the elite lived.
Q: How would you assess what some say is the militant end-times philosophy of the president?
A: It has been taken into account in the profile that was done on him. It was known that his "religious re-birth" could work to the advantage of those who were setting him up to go into Iraq. He would respond on the basis of his view of the world according to his religious convictions.
Q: Lots of pieces in this situation.
A: Contrary to what some people think, not every intelligence operation is bumbled in the manner of some CIA projects. Some operations are very well calculated.
Q: Unless we see the nuclear option exercised.
A: There are people who have been placed in the Pentagon to prevent that.
Q: But do they have iron-clad control?
A: Absolute iron-clad control? No. I would say no.
Q: Do you have very good links that trace the origins of Rockefeller money?
A: I'm not ready to make a definitive judgment there. But so far, it looks to me that certain European rivers flowed into the Rockefeller coffers. If Rothschild money was a major river, and I suspect it was, you could make a case that you're going all the way back to Vatican money.
Q: Because the Rothschilds were, let's call it, money managers for the Vatican?
A: Yes.
Q: In that case, would you go on to trace that Vatican money back to the Knights Templar, the old military and banking group set up by the Vatican? And if so, would you then follow the Templar money to very old London banking institutions?
A: Mostly yes and yes to both your questions. But when you compare the London money to the Vatican money, you're faced with a choice. Which force is really the higher one on the ladder?
Q: And?
A: There is definitely some competition there. But all in all, I would rate the Vatican higher on the ladder.
Q: Where does that put the current Pope's recent hand-wringing over the war in Iraq?
A: That's a complete farce. Of course, the Pope is not in on any of these high-level machinations. He is, in his own way, the Bush of the Vatican. The true control of the Vatican has, for centuries, been in the hands of a militant group. This does not nullify anyone's personal belief in, say, the Holy Trinity. That heavenly structure is far outside what the controlling force inside the Vatican has been up to.
Q: So if we are talking about a flow of huge monies from the Vatican through the Rothschilds and through London---and then, in part, down to the Rockefellers...
A: The common denominator is that all these groups have wanted and want what we now call global management.
Q: A planet weakened and unified under what is really a ruling clique.
A: Yes. A clique secreted behind a bulging bureaucracy. Many bureaucracies.
Q: Comunism, radical socialism, Nazism, fascism, globalism, dictatorship, state corporatism, theocracy, monarchy...
A: All names for fronts, behind which lies a very cold-hearted group that exercises CNTROL over the many.
Q: With no ideology.
A: None.
JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
DUD
March 31. Look for that word to come up soon. Maybe during the war, if the censors can't stop it. Or after the war.
It means DEPLETED URANIUM DUST.
The tons of it that were left there during the first US invasion, in 1991. The tons that are being deposited there now, surely, by the forces of the second invasion.
It's a killer. It causes cancer and liver and kidney failure and severe immune suppression and birth defects and chronic infections.
There was a row about it several years ago, and then the mainstream press, assured by experts that it was a non-issue made out of rumor, moved on to other stories.
Several researchers are pointing out that inhaling---that is, breathing---in the middle of sand storms is a good way of bringing DUD into the body.
This is another issue on which the Pentagon and the US National Institutes of Health and the CDC are silent.
If three people on the same street die within a two-week period in Tucson, the CDC has 20 doctors on the scene measuring every human parameter, to "find the new virus." But are there CDC drones out in the deserts of Iraq, where shells were and are leaving DUD, figuring out what is going to happen to all those troops in the next little while?
No, of course not. The CDC picks their little glamour spots, and leaves the real work behind.
Support our soldiers?
Tell you what, Mr. and Mrs. America. This is no football game. This isn't NASCAR. Unless those drivers are moving through uranium clouds on the track striving to find out who will live the longest and sire the fewest deformed children.
JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com