You are herecontent / AP Improves a Little

AP Improves a Little

AP is now saying 100,000, which was the gross underprediction of UFPJ, presumably aimed at being able to later claim to have drastically overshot the prediction. Trouble is, the best we're getting from the media now is the prediction.


Crowds Opposed to Iraq War March on D.C.
By JENNIFER C. KERR, Associated Press Writer

Crowds opposed to the war in Iraq surged past the White House on Saturday, shouting "Peace now" in the largest anti-war protest in the nation's capital since the U.S. invasion.

The rally stretched through the day and into the night, a marathon of music, speechmaking and dissent on the National Mall. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey, noting that organizers had hoped to draw 100,000 people, said, "I think they probably hit that."

Speakers from the stage attacked President Bush's policies head on, but he was not at the White House to hear it. He spent the day in Colorado and Texas, monitoring hurricane recovery.

In the crowd: young activists, nuns whose anti-war activism dates to Vietnam, parents mourning their children in uniform lost in Iraq, and uncountable families motivated for the first time to protest.

Connie McCroskey, 58, came from Des Moines, Iowa, with two of her daughters, both in their 20s, for the family's first demonstration. McCroskey, whose father fought in World War II, said she never would have dared protest during the Vietnam War.

"Today, I had some courage," she said.

While united against the war, political beliefs varied. Paul Rutherford, 60, of Vandalia, Mich., said he is a Republican who supported Bush in the last election and still does — except for the war.

"President Bush needs to admit he made a mistake in the war and bring the troops home, and let's move on," Rutherford said. His wife, Judy, 58, called the removal of Saddam Hussein "a noble mission" but said U.S. troops should have left when claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction proved unfounded.

"We found that there were none and yet we still stay there and innocent people are dying daily," she said.

"Bush Lied, Thousands Died," said one sign. "End the Occupation," said another. More than 1,900 members of the U.S. armed forces have died since the beginning of the war in March 2003.

A few hundred people in a counter demonstration in support of Bush's Iraq policy lined the protest route near the FBI building. The two groups shouted at each other, a police line keeping them apart. Organizers of a pro-military rally Sunday hoped for 10,000 people.

Ramsey said the day's protest unfolded peacefully under the heavy police presence. "They're vocal but not violent," he said.

Arthur Pollock, 47, of Cecil County, Md., said he was against the war from the beginning. He wants the soldiers out, but not all at once.

"They've got to leave slowly," said Pollock, attending his first protest. "It will be utter chaos in that country if we pull them out all at once."

Folk singer Joan Baez marched with the protesters and later serenaded them at a concert at the foot of the Washington Monument. An icon of the 1960s Vietnam War protests, she said Iraq is already a mess and the troops need to come home immediately. "There is chaos. There's bloodshed. There's carnage."

The protest in the capital showcased a series of demonstrations in foreign and other U.S. cities. A crowd in London, estimated by police at 10,000, marched in support of withdrawing British troops from Iraq. Highlighting the need to get out, protesters said, were violent clashes between insurgents and British troops in the southern Iraq city of Basra.

In Rome, dozens of protesters held up banners and peace flags outside the U.S. Embassy and covered a sidewalk with messages and flowers in honor of those killed in Iraq.

Cindy Sheehan, the California mother who drew thousands of demonstrators to her 26-day vigil outside Bush's Texas ranch last month, won a roar of approval when she took the stage in Washington. Her 24-year-old son, Casey, was killed in Iraq last year.

"Shame on you," Sheehan admonished, directing that portion of her remarks to members of Congress who backed Bush on the war. "How many more of other people's children are you willing to sacrifice?

She led the crowd in chanting, "Not one more."

Separately, hundreds of opponents of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund danced to the beat of drums in the Dupont Circle part of the city before marching toward the White House to join the anti-war protesters.

Supporters of Bush's policy in Iraq assembled in smaller numbers to get their voice heard in the day's anti-war din. About 150 of them rallied at the U.S. Navy Memorial.

Gary Qualls, 48, of Temple, Texas, whose Marine reservist son, Louis, died last year in the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah, asked: "If you bring them home now, who's going to be responsible for all the atrocities that are fixing to happen over there? Cindy Sheehan?"


Associated Press writer Elizabeth White contributed to this report.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The answer to Mr. Qualls' question is, sadly, the same as it was when his son most regrettably died in Iraq last year.

Mr. Bush, Mr, Cheney, and Mr. Rumsfeld are responsible for the atrocities, including Lous Qualls' death. They created the chaos in Iraq, and they hsve prolonged and extended it for two and a half years because they have neither the will nor the competence to stop it.

Mr. Bush must be removed from office. And he must be removed NOW, not following another three years of ever-escalating death and devastation in Iraq, coupled with moral and financial ruin at home.

Congressman Daniel Lungren, one of the key figures in the Congress who can decide upon articles of impeachment is currently sitting on the fence regarding the Iraq war and downing street meetings.

While he is not convinced yet that the President 'knowingly' lied the country into the war, he is not either convinced that the downing street memos are in fact discredited reports from the United Nations assembly like his colleagues are.

He is neither for impeachment nor against it, at this time. In fact, he agrees that the downing street meetings raise serious questions and, in fact at their own merit deserve a proper investigation.

His words are below here.

"Dear Danny,

Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns about Iraq , specifically the "Downing Street Memo." I appreciate hearing from my constituents.

Although this is not a matter relating to any legislation currently before the Congress, a few comments are in order. Placed in their proper context, there may or may not be anything new in this information which has been leaked by certain individuals in the British government. In fact, the reaction of the British cabinet members at least implies nothing more than an argument was being made by the American Administration that Weapons of Mass Destruction might justify action against Iraq. In other words the facts were being used to justify such a policy. Ironically, British intelligence was informing the Prime Minister of the same thing. Prime Minister Blair was in fact making the same argument as President Bush that the intelligence indicated WMD development by the Government of Iraq. There was even an investigation of Mr. Blair's own comments by a special report which was reported to the House of Commons. Thus, it is not at all! clear that the memo communicated anything to the British that they themselves did not conclude on the basis of their own intelligence.

The major distinction between the justification of the war in Iraq by President Bush and Prime Minister Blair is that President Bush also stressed human rights abuses in Iraq . By contrast, Prime Minister Blair's justification relied more heavily on the WMD concern.

Finally, the decision of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair to go to the United Nations prior to taking action against Iraq indicated that a diplomatic solution was sought by both governments.

In defending the action to go to war the Prime Minister asked the House of Commons how responsible would it have been for the leader of a nation to ignore the intelligence he was given. While it is easy to second guess the decision to go to war, the decision was made to proceed on the basis of the intelligence provided by the responsible agencies of the two nations. Although Weapons of Mass Destruction were not found, it is hard to argue that the world is not better off without Saddam Hussein and that human rights conditions have not improved for millions of Iraq 's citizens.

Again, I thank you for corresponding with my office; I invite you to attend my upcoming town hall to discuss this and other topics that are important to you. Please find details on the enclosed flier and I encourage you to visit my website for more information ( ). If you prefer to write using e-mail, I encourage you to send comments using the Feedback Form located on the front page of the website.


Daniel E. Lungren
Member of Congress "

At this point in time Congressman Lungren agrees Tony Blair made some false claims and definitely lied using discredited reports, he is not yet sure if the President did the same thing.

Look, it is up to us to MAKE him sure is what I'm getting at. There are dozens of Congressmen like Lungren, who if they see everything will definitely revolt against the neocons and agree to impeachment proceedings.

But what we have so far, is memos, words, dates and times. None of which are solidly backed in the congressional record.

Reach out and contact Lungren and any other fence sitters you see, that is what we have to do!

Note that there are those who can be convinced, and then there are those neocons. Reach out to only the ones who can be convinced and give them the full facts.

Reach Mr Lungren here:
Reach the rest of congress here:



PNAC. This is the bottom line! PNAC. This government is criminal! We can debate and debate but they have a historical aggenda that must be investigated. We are not sheep, we are intelligent people who are pissed. Pissed at what happened in Iraq and pissed at what happenend to our own people in America. The President is responsible. He has addmitted to it. Lawyers all over America take note.

Force every last one of them to get the truth about PNAC, if they don't sign on for inquiry then, THEY'RE THE ENEMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


PNAC. This is the bottom line! PNAC. This government is criminal! We can debate and debate but they have a historical aggenda that must be investigated. We are not sheep, we are intelligent people who are pissed. Pissed at what happened in Iraq and pissed at what happenend to our own people in America. The President is responsible. He has addmitted to it. Lawyers all over America take note.

I have worked my remote thru a set of batteries trying to find some/any coverage of the March in DC by any of the msm. So far, the only coverage I have seen has been a "banner ad" on FOX (no less) spelling out that there were anti-war protests in DC and some other cities around the world.

That's it! No CNN, No MSNBC..nada.

One bright light: CSPAN carried some speeches live this morning.

The news reaction did seem underwhelming earlier, but it's now the #2 story on Google News. So it could still hit the top of the list.

When I read a Reuters News Agency article on my TV sattelite system, it recorded a turnout of over 300,000 at the protest. So it seems the media is slowly but surely acknowledging that there was a much larger turnout than just "thousands."

We can use technology to tell the truth. What I find simply appaling is that has basically shut down Where is the support from our own party? We really have to start a new party!

Try instead (for some reason the Democrat Party added an "s")

You think of this letter.....I think its one of the best I've ever written.

"Dear Mr. Lungren,

Thank you for the well-formatted and important reply.

Unlike certain other members of Congress, you do pay attention to what your constituents say and also understand that the Downing Street Memos can not be dismissed.

However when you say, "It is not clear the president had the same reasons for going to war as Prime Minister Tony Blair" what exactly is it you are really implying?

Was the president not privy to the exact same information as Mr. Blair was?
Is the intelligence he received somehow not the same intelligence that Mr. Blair received?
Does the article of law, in our constitution differentiate between "lying with justification" and "lying without justification" or "not "knowingly" lying" ?

With due respect it seems to be word semantics that do not stand up the rule of law. I believe on a matter which is as serious as a war, semantics should not be used and there must be a severely strict investigation of what the leaders did who ran that war.

I agree with the importance of stopping the human rights abuses in Iraq and there were some good developments. However continuing to stay there, when there is not even clearly valid or legal reason for being there is just like Congress signing over a blank-check to the Presidency and hoping they come out good on the other side.

At the outset of this war, Congress agreed with certain steps to be taken in Iraq and did not in any word agree to declare full out war. It was only after the weapons of mass destruction "smoking gun" and corresponding evidence was shouted, that Congress agreed to justify the entire war and invasion.

In a manner of speaking, Congress allowed themselves to be bought and bamboozled. And it is either too corrupt, or violently polarized now to hold the executive branch accountable which is why I'm presenting this evidence.

I'm a firm believer in bringing this country back to order, and that no impeachment nor conviction should be done without hard, solid evidence.

Evidence which shows below, clearly how CIA agents were pressured politically to make false estimates for things Congress has not investigated to this day.

Which is why I am calling for you and other Chairmen to review the case and figure out how to do an investigation.

If such an investigation is to be done, it needs bi-partisan support. Whether or not this was a case which is properly deserving of impeachment, needs to be completely reviewed and analyzed with respect to the law of our land.

It comes down to this: We're no longer going to sit on the sidelines, and we are going to get Congress to act whether we have to replace them or not.

My father was a fiscal conservative, my uncle is as well and neither of them believe any of the various lies about the Iraq war justifications. They want the truth, and rightfully demand the truth and accountability.

Many represenatives keep treating it as a partisan issue and pooh-poohing it from both sides, but it really is not. Its about the truth and about all of us, versus they who very well may be war criminals. And only through getting to that place, and agreeing on a full Resolution regarding all things Downing Street will we have that truth.

This man below is the result of Bush's GOP policies, and there are millions like him.

Other Congress members seem to be simply falling apart, either stressed out or just not able to face the real enemy.

And it has had a drastic cost on both parties while damaging the ones in power the worst.

There is a clear, vastly corrupt threat which is neither conservative nor liberal, but who is anti-american that Congress needs to challenge and face it head on.

I'm talking of the neo-conservatives, neo-luddite liberals of the Project of New American Century.

Get educated about them please, everyone is concerned with them now.

Read their plans, their proposals and motivations. Find out just what these people have to do with the President or anyone else on the Federal Bench, or in Congress because they are clearly hellbent on only one thing: Their agenda of globalization.

We as americans need to rise up and stop them as we're the only ones who can, given what the truth is showing. And to do so we need to all stop drinking the kool-aid or reading the talking points.

The Republican party could be destroyed otherwise, and many more like this man will flood the country.

And many more Democrats as well, since the Democratic party itself could lose its entire foundation.

We don't try to change the future, Mr. Congressman. We stand up right now and change ourselves, and then change the future with it.

Do the right thing and support a Resolution of Inquiry about the Iraq war. Do not let the country down, and help change our country now, like all true americans wish to do and must do.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Speaking Events



August 2-6: Peace and Democracy Conference at Democracy Convention in Minneapolis, Minn.


September 22-24: No War 2017 at American University in Washington, D.C.


October 28: Peace and Justice Studies Association Conference

Find more events here.


Support This Site


Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.



Speaking Truth to Empire


Families United


Ray McGovern


Julie Varughese


Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.



Ca-Dress Long Prom Dresses Canada
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.