9/15 Anti-War Rally Photos

[ Posted Sunday, September 23rd, 2007 – 18:14 UTC ]

Special bonus Sunday posting!

The following are photographs of last week's anti-war rally and march in Washington, D.C. They were sent to me by a reader of the site, and are better than anything I saw in the media coverage about the event, so I asked him if I could post them here. His name is B. Driscoll, and he took all these photos himself.

Of course you're free to make comments (as always), but if you'd like to send email to B. Driscoll directly, you can use the Email Chris page and I will forward them on to him with your email address, so he can respond directly to you if he wishes.

These are covered by the same Reprint Policy which covers cartoons on this site. Basically, any free site can post them as long as they credit "B. Driscoll" for the photos, and provide a link back to this site as the originator of the photos on the web. Pay sites, please read the reprint policy page for more information (substitute "B. Driscoll" for "Charles W. Cunningham" and "photo" for "cartoon").

These are smaller photos than the original (for reasons of space), but if you click on any photo, you will get a window with the full-sized photo, which shows more detail. Some of these original files are rather large, though, so be warned.

I'd like to thank B. Driscoll for publicly making these photos available, and allowing me to post them here. I am always open to consideration for photos of other events which the mainstream media largely ignores as well.

The first photo is of the "die-in" where most of the arrests were made. The black and white photo of a speaker is Eton Thomas from the Washington Wizards basketball team.





















-- Chris Weigant


19 Comments on “9/15 Anti-War Rally Photos”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW, the photos display on the same page as your site. Your readers should right click on the photo and select OPEN IN NEW WINDOW/TAB. That way they can close the photo, but still be on your site..

    B. Driscoll is to be commended. The quality of the photos are excellent. I would love to know what he used...

    (Yea, I know, I know.. A camera) :^/

    I only have two comments about the content..

    On the DRIVE OUT podium picture, the "small print" says "STOP THE ATTACK ON IRAN"...

    Now, if Iran is working towards nuclear weapons, why would ANYONE in their right mind want to stop an attack designed to prevent this?? Why would anyone in their right mind want a psychotic despot like Ahmenjaden (Yea, I know it's spelled wrong, I am too lazy to cut and paste... Sue me.. :D) to possess nuclear weapons??

    This is my point about how Americans who put forth this are traitors.. They want to arm our enemies with the most vicious and vile of weapons... Why would they want to do that??

    The second comment is about the BUSH/CHENEY IMPEACHED...

    Nothing has been done to warrant Impeachment.. This is one of the very few things that the Democratic Party Leaders (Pelosi, Reid) and Dem Party Candidates (Clinton, Obama, etc etc) actually got right..

    Impeachment is a wet dream of the Uber-Left and is immediately discarded by those who calmly and rationally look at things..

    Otherwise, great pics.. Almost brings back my childhood memories.. I say almost because they protests of today just doesn't seem to have the "heart" that went into the protests of bygone days.... :D

    Back then, people walked the walk.. Today, it's all lip-service...

    says the protester and then jumps into her Hummer SUV to drive the 3 blocks to her house...

    "I disagree. Sometimes......"

    "But what about....."

    This seems to be what makes up protests these days...


  2. [2] 
    benskull wrote:

    From what I understand, and I forget his name, but he's the senator that would be in charge of impeachment, head of the judiciary committee? Anyway, I saw an interview with him, where it was said that there are quite a few issues that make an impeachment hearing possible, mostly to do with manipulating different laws to practice the way they have in the us borders to prevent "terror", with the help of Gonzales. He said that while that was possible, a)the length of time left in office, and b) the weak majority in house and senate, would make it very difficult. I think they should follow through myself to open the eyes of those in the public that don't pay much attention. Oh and as far as Iran, they continue to claim that there nuclear program is strictly civilian. However, it wouldn't surprise me if countries in those regions were now preparing to defend themselves against the US considering our willingness to attack a country that really had no means to be a threat in the first place, but a good investment. I do want to do some more reading though on this guy. I have read that Iran was trying to be very cooperative right before and right after we entered Iraq, and that Bush turned down several proposals. And as far as the impeachment being an uber left wet dream, what about the millions spent on impeaching clinton for his BJ? I would feel that infidelity does not rank as high as manipulating and ignoring the constitution. Oh and keep in mind that the US is responsible for the arming of many nations over there, Iraq included.

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:


    >Oh and as far as Iran, they continue
    >to claim that there nuclear program
    >is strictly civilian.

    I find it very VERY difficult to believe that a country that sits on some of the largest oil deposits in the world would "need" nuclear energy. Considering that conventional energy is far easier to produce with oil and all the considerable incentives NOT to develop nuclear power, it seems to me that, if civilian nuclear energy was the goal, Iran would give it up.. It's a no brainer. Once again, we refer to Occam's Razor and look at the most logical and rational explanation...

    Iran wants nuclear weapons...

    >However, it wouldn't surprise me
    >if countries in those regions were
    >now preparing to defend themselves
    >against the US considering our
    >willingness to attack a country
    >that really had no means to be a
    >threat in the first place, but a
    >good investment

    On the surface, your argument appears logical..

    However, one must look at the proportions.. If the US was bent on attacking Iran, do you think one or two nuclear weapons would deter us?? And, if Iran were to use one of their bombs, you can rest assured that Iran would be a nice glowing parking lot very soon thereafter... Finally, by simply developing nuclear weapons, Iran is INCREASING the chances of an attack to a virtual certainty..

    Once again, given all of the afore and add to that a near 100% certainty that the US would attack with overwhelming and massive power, it would seem to the logical and rational person that the only logical and rational course of action is to NOT develop nuclear weapons..

    Even IF (and that's a big IF)... Even IF the US held back and did not lay waste to Iran, you can bet that the Israelis would be more than willing to do the job...

    So, once again.. The only RATIONAL course of action is to NOT develop nuclear weapons..

    >I have read that Iran was trying to be
    >very cooperative right before and right
    >after we entered Iraq, and that Bush
    >turned down several proposals

    You realize that you are talking about the same scumbag who was part of the cabal that stormed the US Embassy and took your fellow Americans hostage for over a year, right??

    I doubt that Iran even knows what the word "cooperation" means..

    >And as far as the impeachment being
    >an uber left wet dream, what about
    >the millions spent on impeaching
    >clinton for his BJ?

    Actually, Clinton's impeachment was for Lying Under Oath and Obstruction Of Justice. The exact same charges that ya'all on the Left condemned Scooter Libby for, if I recall correctly..

    >I would feel that infidelity does
    >not rank as high as manipulating
    >and ignoring the constitution.

    The Constitution provides for it's own manipulation during time of war. No one has ignored the Constitution. Anything and everything done to date was within the bounds of the Constitution. Much as it was during FDR's time and much as it was during Lincoln's time...

    >Oh and keep in mind that the US
    >is responsible for the arming of
    >many nations over there, Iraq included.

    What's yer point??? Besides relying on 20/20 hindsight, I mean...


  4. [4] 
    benskull wrote:

    I guess, but we haven't attacked North Korea. They have nukes. While they have no chance of defeating us, they could do some damage. That is a risk apparantly not worth taking, considering there much larger threat, and hatred for the US. And I thought the current Iranian president was relatively new? Like I said, I haven't read much about him. I'm not saying that Iran is innocent and we are the bad guys, but I do believe that our aggressive foreign policies dictate many of our current threats. I still have to watch his 60 minutes interview, haven't had time. I still believe that if we focused on other sources of energy, so that we wouldn't be so dependant on the oil of other countries, alot of these problems simply wouldn't exist. Oh well. Se La Vi. Guess I'll have to go back to school for political science, maybe some economics and save the country myself :)

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    >I guess, but we haven't attacked North Korea.
    >They have nukes.

    That's a good point..

    My guess would be that NK is not a threat to the energy reserves that our economy needs to survive..

    Iran is...

    >And I thought the current Iranian
    >president was relatively new?

    Yes he is new as President. But several hostages from the Iranian Embassy Crisis have ID'ed him as one the main players of the hostage takers..

    Regardless of that, there is Iran's continued support of Hezbollah and Hamas, not to mention it is all but proven as fact that Iran is providing the Iraqi insurgency with arms and troops.. We're pretty much at war with Iran already.. The general public just doesn't realize it yet..

    >I still believe that if we focused
    >on other sources of energy, so that
    >we wouldn't be so dependant on the
    >oil of other countries, alot of
    >these problems simply wouldn't exist.

    Now, on THIS point, you and I are in complete agreement.. If this world is ever going to survive to become the Star Trek universe ( :D ) we are going to have to come up with new forms of energy. You won't catch me disagreeing with you at all on this..

    But, unfortunately, until we do....??? Our economy needs oil like a human being needs oxygen.. And if you were to live in a world where a psychotic madman can influence the majority of oxygen.... Well, my guess is that you would want to do something about that, eh???

    >Guess I'll have to go back to school
    >for political science, maybe some
    >economics and save the country myself :)

    Good luck with that.. :D I'll be rootin' for ya...


    NOTE: I won't be as prolific over the next few days or so as I usually am.. My youngest son is graduating from MCRD, Parris Island this Fri (which is, incidentally my 47th birtday... Or is it 46?? 48??? Hell, I dunno) Anyways, we're going to be up there for his graduation, so ya'all MIGHT get a break from me for at least a few days... Use it wisely.. :D

    SEMPER FI !!!

  6. [6] 
    CDub wrote:

    Iran needs nuclear energy, as they laid out back in the 70's. They have very little oil, and it's their only export. They'd like to sell it in order to grow their economy. If they burn it, they have nothing to sell. Electricity is not very useful if you can't afford light-bulbs.

    Back in the 70's, the republican Ford administration unanimously approved Iran's nuclear ambitions. Defense secretary Rumsfeld ... thumbs up. Chief of staff Cheney ... thumbs up. It was a clear and sensible plan, generate electricity with other means and free up oil for export.

    I'm ashamed of the American media and the American people that they are buying into the anti Iran rhetoric. Both should know better. The media is largely controlled by moneyed interests, and probably can't be trusted to do better, but the American people have already seen these same proponents of war tell the VERY SAME STORIES about another middle east country ... all lies. Same people, same lies.

    Don't buy it America.

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    >They have very little oil,

    Sorry, I call BS....

    Iran has the world's second largest reserves of conventional crude oil at 133 gigabarrels, according to the CIA World Factbook, although it should be noted that both Canada and Venezuela have larger reserves if Non-conventional oil is included. Iran is the second largest oil holder globally with approximately 10% of the world's oil.

    Very little oil?? I think not...

    >Back in the 70's, the republican Ford >administration unanimously approved
    >Iran's nuclear ambitions. Defense
    >secretary Rumsfeld … thumbs up.
    >Chief of staff Cheney … thumbs up.
    >It was a clear and sensible plan,
    >generate electricity with other
    >means and free up oil for export.

    So what.. That was back when the Shah, who was a US ally, was in power. Nuclear power IS a sensible way to generate electricity. But not when you have a psychotic Anti-American lunatic running things..

    It's the difference between Canada wanting nuclear power and Hitler's Nazi Germany wanting nuclear power..

    One plan is a fine and sensible plan. The other plan is dangerous to the entire world...

    I'll let you figure out which is which.. :D

    >I'm ashamed of the American media
    >and the American people that they
    >are buying into the anti Iran rhetoric.
    >Both should know better.

    So, ALL of the American Media and ALL of the American People are wrong about IRAN and you.. YOU are the one who is right...

    Wow... And you people call ME arrogant.. :D

    >Same people, same lies.


    So, Saddam Hussein wasn't an evil psychotic madman who used WMDs on his own people?


  8. [8] 
    CDub wrote:

    Michale wrote:
    Very little oil?? I think not…

    25 years of reserves at peak production isn't worth much if you burn it up. If you sell it, on the other hand, you can build your economy. And besides that, why should a sovereign nation hinge their energy policies on what you think? Would you let Iran decide how your life should be run? I think not

    So what.. That was back when the Shah, who was a US ally, was in power. Nuclear power IS a sensible way to generate electricity. But not when you have a psychotic Anti-American lunatic running things..

    Ah yes, the shah, that brutal dictator. What a friend to mankind.

    Psychotic anti-American lunatic running things ... that's rabid. That's 'blinded by hatred' speech. That's hysterical speech. That's MSM drivel. I saw Newt Gingrich refer to Ahmadinejad as a brutal dictator on the news, and yet he's not a dictator at all, it's not much of a leap to see that the 'brutal' part is also a fabrication.

    >Same people, same lies.


    So, Saddam Hussein wasn't an evil psychotic madman who used WMDs on his own people?

    When did we invade Iraq because he used WMD's on his own people ... that's right, we didn't, we had to make up all sorts of reasons, all lies, and this is all we have left, I'll bet he didn't return all his library books either?

    There is no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran. There's ample evidence that they are currently in full compliance with all nuclear treaties as well as voluntarily allowing inspections beyond those imposed on any other country. Remember these facts every time you hear lies to the contrary expressed as if they were true. Pay attention to who says these lies and notice that they are the same people who sold us the current occupation.

    For instance, you're for war with Iraq, notice how you use the phrase, "psychotic Anti-American lunatic running things" when referring to Ahmadinejad.

    Same people, same lies.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Congress Denounces Iran's Ahmadinejad

    WASHINGTON (AP) - Congress signaled its disapproval of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with a vote Tuesday to tighten sanctions against his government and a call to designate his army a terrorist group.

    The swift rebuke was a rare display of bipartisan cooperation in a Congress bitterly divided on the Iraq war. It reflected lawmakers' long-standing nervousness about Tehran's intentions in the region, particularly toward Israel—a sentiment fueled by the pro-Israeli lobby whose influence reaches across party lines in Congress.

    "Iran faces a choice between a very big carrot and a very sharp stick," said Rep. Tom Lantos, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "It is my hope that they will take the carrot. But today, we are putting the stick in place."

    The House passed, by a 397-16 vote, a proposal by Lantos, D-Calif., aimed at blocking foreign investment in Iran, in particular its lucrative energy sector. The bill would specifically bar the president from waiving U.S. sanctions.

    Current law imposes sanctions against any foreign company that invests $20 million or more in Iran's energy industry, although the U.S. has waived or ignored sanction laws in exchange for European support on nonproliferation issues.

    In the Senate, Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., proposed a nonbinding resolution urging the State Department to label Iran's military—the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—a terrorist organization.

    The Bush administration had already been planning to blacklist a unit within the Revolutionary Guard, subjecting part of the vast military operation to financial sanctions.

    The legislative push came a day after Ahmadinejad defended Holocaust revisionists, questioned who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks and declared homosexuals didn't exist in Iran in a tense question-and- answer session at Columbia University.

    The Iranian president planned to speak Tuesday at the U.N. General Assembly.

    Lantos' bill was expected to draw criticism from U.S. allies in Europe. During a visit to Washington last week, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told lawmakers that France opposes any U.S. legislation that would target European countries operating in Iran. He argued that such sanctions could undermine cooperation on dealing with Iran.

    So, once again.. EVERYONE is wrong about Iran. Congress, the Bush Administration, the Media and the American People. ALL OF THEM are wrong on IRAN and YOU are right...

    Does that about sum things up??


  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Iran is so bent on nuclear power for non-military purposes, why doesn't Tehran accept the US's and Russia's offer to build Light Water Reactors?? Iran would save MILLIONS in construction costs, PLUS be able to reap the political and economic benefits of abandoning their nuclear program..

    I'll tell you why Tehran doesn't accept LWRs.. Because, with the fuel from LWRs, it is nearly impossible to weapons grade plutonium..

    Once again, considering ALL the benefits that IRAN stands to gain, the ONLY reason for IRAN to continue it's nuclear program is to produce Nuclear Weapons..

    No other solution makes sense..


  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sarkozy says letting Iran go nuclear could cause war

    UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons could destabilize the world and lead to war, French President Nicolas Sarkozy told the United Nations on Tuesday.

    In his maiden speech to the U.N. General Assembly, Sarkozy said: "There will be no peace in the world if the international community falters in the face of nuclear arms proliferation."

    Iran was entitled to nuclear power for civilian purposes, he said, "but if we allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, we would incur an unacceptable risk to stability in the region and in the world".

    In a broader warning against the dangers of appeasement, the new French leader said: "Weakness and renunciation do not lead to peace. They lead to war."

    Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but the West suspects the Islamic Republic of enriching uranium to develop a nuclear weapons capability.

    Underlining French support for tougher sanctions against Tehran, sought by the United States but opposed by Russia and China, Sarkozy said: "We can only resolve this crisis by combining firmness with dialogue."

    In an interview with the New York Times published on Monday, Sarkozy said that if the U.N. Security Council was unable to agree on further financial sanctions, the European Union should take its own measures to raise pressure on Iran.

    French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner caused an outcry last week by saying if diplomacy failed to stop Iran's nuclear program, the world should prepare for the worst -- war.

    But Sarkozy appeared to deliver the same message in a coded form, without mentioning the possibility of military action to prevent Iran achieving a nuclear capability.


  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh yes, the Leader of Iran is a really swell guy...

    Homosexuals Executed In Iran...,4644,2396,00.html

  13. [13] 
    CDub wrote:

    Same people, same lies.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    >Same people, same lies.

    Of course, you can point to these lies, right??

    Of course you can't. You are just much more comfortable sticking your head in the sand and pretending that everything the US does is bad and everything all the enemies of the US do is good...


  15. [15] 
    CDub wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    >Same people, same lies.

    Of course, you can point to these lies, right??

    Easily. For instance, just this month the Bush admin. got caught cooking up the kool-aid. Iran hasn't figured out how to reliably create reactor fuel, but Bush et al. are intent on pretending that there's a weapons program hidden in there somewhere (that no-one has ever seen).

    And how about your lies, "psychotic"? Where's the clinical diagnosis for that ... Rush Limbaugh's mind?

    Of course you can't.

    Argue against your own answer to your own question, classic Michale. Avoids having to deal with actual facts and real discussion.

    You are just much more comfortable sticking your head in the sand and pretending that everything the US does is bad and everything all the enemies of the US do is good…

    Keep the lies coming

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, it's a "lie" because the IAEA says so??

    Oh wait... Even the IAEA didn't say it was a lie..

    They said it was "misleading" and "erroneous"....

    And, since the IAEA is biased in favor of Iran anyways, I don't put too much stock in anything they report..

    So, you still have yet to show any real "lies"...

    Face it, CDub.. You simply hate Bush.. You are a Bush basher... And anything that is even REMOTELY damaging to the US administration, you will blow up and exaggerate so that it becomes the worst possible thing it could be...

    Just like you poo-poo anything bad said about USA's enemies.. So, the fact that the Iranian government executes homosexuals is a "lie"... The fact that Iran is supplying troops and arms that kill YOUR fellow Americans is a "lie"...

    Whose side are you on anyways???


  17. [17] 
    CDub wrote:

    See benskull, how Michale makes up his own facts and things to argue against? And then argues against them. Tossed in the bush bashing to boot.

    If the IAEA is pro-Iran, why is the administration quoting them as proof of an Iranian conspiracy? If the administration has to misquote the IAEA in order to pretend there's a conspiracy, why is the administration using the IAEA as a source.

    The fact is, the administration has no case against Iran, but they will not let mere reality intrude on their plans. Sorta like you. War crime anyone?

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    >The fact is, the administration has
    >no case against Iran,

    So, as I said... You would back Iran against the US when war breaks out..


    Why can't you EVER answer a simple question???


  19. [19] 
    CDub wrote:

    So, as I said, just because you have nothing to add to the conversation, you can't pass up an opportunity to attack others.

Comments for this article are closed.