I attended the march to protest the invasion of Iraq today in New York City. The crowd of 100,000 to 200,000 stretched from Times Square to Washington Square--this thing was big. As with the Feb. 15 rally, the mood was passionate and upbeat, with spontaneous cheering and chanting: "Money for health care! Not for war! Money for schools! Not for war! Money for libraries! Not for war!" As you can see from this picture, it was a family event, on a beautiful Spring day, and you could almost close your eyes and believe that the suits weren't raining death and madness on a faraway country, at hideous cost to all of us.

The crowd was mellow but a lot of the signs were angry. How could you not feel that way if you'd spent a couple of days watching Wolf Blitzer and Peter Arnett screaming "Whoa! Whoa! Look at the size of that one!" as downtown Baghdad was ripped to shreds? Here's the grrlpower antidote to the wargasm boys: one of the signs said "Eat my Bush."

And then there was this guy. This is a bold piece of agitprop, but of course it represents an extreme view that this page cannot in any way endorse. Can you imagine, comparing Bush to you-know-who and the WTC massacre to the Reichstag fire? Irresponsible, irresponsible.

Unlike Feb. 15, cop presence was at a minimum. I guess they figured out that the crowds of kids, moms & dads, and seniors that turn out for these events don't merit the plastic handcuffs and riot gear. Also, virtually no "pro-war" demonstrators to be seen: just a couple of disgruntled souls standing on the sidewalk shaking their heads or holding thumbs down. No hardhats screaming "Death to hippies!" I certainly have the impression that this city, which you'd think might be baying for militaristic revenge for 9/11, in fact feels emphatically the opposite. Maybe that's why Bush has decided to sacrifice us.

- tom moody 3-23-2003 3:35 am

Nice documentation, thanks.
- jimlouis 3-23-2003 4:20 am

Here's David Lindorff's take on counterpunch.org. I hadn't heard anything about the police buses and national guard massed on the far west side. Nor of the 75 year old woman who possibly stopped some violence in the end.

Note that he heard the "money for jobs; not for war" guy as well. That guy rocked.
- jim 3-24-2003 9:40 pm

Pearl Harbor happened during FDR's time, and that was reason for war. The death of 3,000 americans used to be a bad thing. Now acting on an attack that caused the death of 3,000 americans is considered as evil as what hitler did. you all can go to hell and say hi to hitler for me. You can not endorse of comparing hilter to what happened, cause of the effect it will have, but you obviously agree with it.

You people are hateful, and are as bad as the terrists who sadisticly murdered that man in Iraq in cold blood.
- anonymous (guest) 5-14-2004 10:04 pm

“Now acting on an attack that caused the death of 3,000 americans is considered as evil as what hitler did. “

Hey Anonymous, can you name which countries the 911 suicide-hijackers were citizens of?

Your ignoramus is showing.

- steve 5-14-2004 10:59 pm

Folks, I've listened to enough Rush Limbaugh to understand anon's dialect. Let me translate ...

"FDR invaded and occupied Canada after the attack on Pearl Harbor, so it's okay for Bush to invade Iraq after we were attacked by a group of insane Saudis."

"Free speech is dangerous."

"I hate you because your dislike of Bush makes my brain hurt."

"Free expression of opinions that I hate is morally equivalent to taaarrism."
- mark 5-15-2004 8:31 am

Yeah, we're not supposed to compare ourselves to the Nazis, but I don't know how else to talk about this:

It was not far into the war in Afghanistan that Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld made plain his views of the treatment of prisoners, after horrifying accounts began to surface of the treatment of Taliban POWs.

Recall that after the surrender of the Kunduz fortress in November 2001 hundreds of Taliban were taken prisoner along with an American called John Walker Lindh. Rumsfeld had originally stated that the US was "not inclined to negotiate surrenders". He then amended this to say that the Taliban should be let out of the net but that foreign fighters should expect no mercy: "My hope is they will either be killed or taken prisoner."

It turned out they endured both Rumsfeld's options. A year later Jamie Doran, a British television producer, aired his documentary establishing beyond reasonable doubt that hundreds of these prisoners - with no distinction between Taliban or "foreign fighters"- died either by suffocation in the container trucks used to transport them towards the Shebarghan prison, or by outright execution near Shebarghan.

On the basis of interviews with eyewitnesses, Doran said U.S. soldiers were present when the containers were opened. "When the containers were finally opened, a mess of urine, blood, faeces, vomit and rotting flesh was all that remained ... As the containers were lined up outside the prison, a [U.S.] soldier accompanying the convoy was present when the prison commanders received orders to dispose of the evidence quickly. Newsweek's investigation into the Afghan atrocities ("The Death Convoy of Afghanistan," 26 August 2002) stated that "American forces were working intimately with 'allies' who committed what could well qualify as war crimes."

Witnesses also stated "600 Taliban PoWs who survived the containers' shipment to the Shebarghan prison ... were taken to a spot in the desert and executed in the presence of about 30 to 40 U.S. special forces soldiers" (The Globe and Mail, 19 December 2002). Other U.S. soldiers are said to have involved themselves directly and enthusiastically in the "dirty work" of prisoner torture and the disposal of corpses. "The Americans did whatever they wanted," stated one Afghan witness. "We had no power to stop them. Everything was under the control of the American commander."

- tom moody 5-15-2004 9:07 pm

add a comment to this page:

Your post will be captioned "posted by anonymous,"
or you may enter a guest username below:

Line breaks work. HTML tags will be stripped.