CandleLight Vigil in Minneapolis to honor persons killed in Iraq Photo Gallery by n at pbase.com

photo sharing and upload

picture albums

photo forums

search pictures

popular photos

photography help

login

n | profile | all galleries >> Galleries >> CandleLight Vigil in Minneapolis to honor persons killed in Iraq

tree view | thumbnails | slideshow

CandleLight Vigil in Minneapolis to honor persons killed in Iraq

comment |

neo-con		08-Feb-2007 22:42
The Iraq war has been good for Iraqi's. THEY ARE FREE now. If it takes another 3000 more dead american soldiers then bring it on, for FREEDOM! It's made the world a better place for all us FREE people. All these bleeding heart liberals were wrong, it's been a huge success for American pride! Thankyou George Bush for fixing Iraq. You can see how much the Iraqi's are thankful for our great work, they love us like we love you! What's all this bullshit about global warming anyway, I aint giving up my humvee for commies!!! (but Chinaman commies are good because they make cheap shit for our great American corporations).

Guest		31-Mar-2006 02:02
Good gallery. If you like politics please visit my new site: http://www.leftwingrant.com/

n		19-Jan-2005 02:23
Tracy, The country and the world lost the election; not me. If anything, I stand to benefit financially from GW Bush's policies, but that doesn't make them right. It's those heroic soldiers that Bush always talks about that are being ignored. The soldiers will be honored in a ceremony at the 40 million dollar inaugeration ball while their families are being paid a 12 thousand dollar death benefit. n

Guest		04-Nov-2004 14:31
n Don't feel too bad about losing this election. There is always a silver lining. The path is now clear for Hillary in '08!

Guest		03-Nov-2004 15:36
It's over, face it your side lost. I know it’s gotta be rough for you right now. Hey, we’ve all been there. “You lose” are two horrible words when put together in that order. Bin Laden surfacing this weekend to reminded the American people of why Bush is needed as president was a cruel trick or treat. But there he was. 3,000 people were killed and the president was the only choice to defend us. Our Special Forces are going after him? Why did your side forget about bin Laden on the DAY AFTER 9/11, the American people did'nt. There he was, Michael Moore, all fat and rested with his videotape Army (hey, did you get the feeling that he had nothing in Florida or Ohio to videotape?) Speaking of his stupid movie - can I ask you a personal question before we part ways for good on Wednesday? Did you and your friends really think that piece of crap would help Kerry win? The people are much smarter than that. What a waste of your time and resources! Sure, I know what your pollsters told you, that the film had convinced some people to vote your side in. I just want you to know that was Michael's original intent. Funny things happen at the movies. Hope you get to see a few at the multiplex. It’s a great way to relax.

Guest		21-Oct-2004 22:47
you Demowacks are getting desperated attacking opposing candidates' family members.

n		01-Oct-2004 00:59
GUEST without a name Posted another unethical Republican attack using Kerry quotes taken out of context. Check out the non-partisan site below for the truth about Kerry's CONSISTENT position on Iraq and the problems with the Repug advertisement: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=269

Guest		01-Oct-2004 00:16
LMAO. Kerry can make his own decisions... Are you for reals? The guy stance with any issues changes with the wind. He's taken over ten different positions on the war alone. Do you even know if he's for it or not? He obviously doesn't! KERRY: "I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03) "Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry on Monday called the invasion of Iraq ‘the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time’ and said his goal was to withdraw U.S. troops in his first White House term." (Patricia Wilson, " Kerry on Iraq: Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time", Reuters, 9/6/04) "I think it was the right vote based on what Saddam Hussein had done, and I think it was the right thing to do to hold him accountable." (MSNBC's "Imus In The Morning," 9/15/04) Kerry needs to run for office at Sea World. It's obvious that he is incapable of making and holding decisions. Kerry aka Flipper can definitely keep us entertained.

n		30-Sep-2004 23:15
Guest: Edwards isn't the main man on the ticket, unlike Cheney who runs the show for Bush. Kerry can make his own decisions.

Guest		30-Sep-2004 20:34
CNN's Late Edition, John Edwards, "I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country, and I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat."

n		30-Sep-2004 19:53
Each Month Since the Handover of Sovereignty Has Been Bloodier Than the Last. June:42 American soldiers were killed in Iraq in June. July:54 American soldiers were killed in Iraq in July. August:66 American soldiers were killed in Iraq in August. September (as of 9/28): at least 77 American soldiers killed so far in September. n

Guest		30-Sep-2004 18:22
even Jon Stewart whose a liberal is getting fed up with John Kerry's flip flopping.

n		30-Sep-2004 10:07
Cheney Flip Flop. An interview with Cheney after the FIRST war with Iraq: "I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. "And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties. And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. "And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

Guest		30-Sep-2004 03:51
If one accepts the view that the criteria for presidential greatness is the ability to confound one’s political opponents by stealing their issues and outsmarting them at virtually every turn, by that measure – from tax cuts to education reform to the war on terror to his domestic spending priorities to his mid-term election victories – if political success equals greatness, then George W. Bush is a great president indeed. Here is the playbook for most of these political photo sites: Crazy Liberal Idea #1: Bush Is a Moron Crazy Liberal Idea #2: Bush Is a Puppet Crazy Liberal Idea #3: Bush Is a Fanatic Crazy Liberal Idea #4: Bush Is Hitler…Only Not as Talented Crazy Liberal Idea #5: Bush Isn’t Protecting You Crazy Liberal Idea #6: Bush Wants to Bankrupt the Government Crazy Liberal Idea #7: Bush Is a Cowboy Crazy Liberal Idea #8: Bush Is a Liar When taken as a whole, these “crazy ideas” indicate the irrational nature of the Bush haters – that they can simultaneously hold contradictory opinions of the man: Is he a moron and a puppet controlled by others? Or is he a dangerous fanatic? Why would his fanaticism be dangerous if he is controlled by others? Sounds like desperation.

n		30-Sep-2004 02:52
A hip-hopper debates G.W. Bush: http://slambush.net/video/index.html

n		30-Sep-2004 02:21
Congressional Democrats from poor districts are raising the issue of a draft to being attention to the plight of their constituents that are paying the price in the war in iraq with their lives WHILE MILLIONAIRE'S ARE GETTING TAX REBATES THAT ARE DRAINING SOCIAL SECURITY. Why is the idea of a real draft even possible? Because the troops are overextended, and the British are talking about pulling out of Iraq. That's right, the British, the second biggest force behind the US troops, might be pulled. And just because Kerry doesn't slam the backdoor draft every day doesn't mean that the issue doesn't exist. It's not Kerry's issue; ask the families of of the servicemen that are affected. Kerry didn't make up the problem. It's GW BUSH's POOR PLANNING. It's GW BUSH'S WAR. Backdoor Draft Alan Simpson Aug. 5th, 2004 --One of the least discussed, and one of the most unjust aspects of the current invasion of Iraq is the use of National Guard volunteers to invade foreign countries, when there is, and never was a danger to the United States. It creates an unjust burden on the families, and lives of the volunteers, and reservists. What makes it even more despicable is that many of these volunteers, ill equipped, and not trained for the task, are thrown into the battle alongside Mercenaries (aka Contractors) who are being paid many thousands of dollars more a month. There are over 20,000 Mercenaries running around Iraq, many with masters, and missions kept away from scrutiny. They abuse Iraqi nationals, and leave the regular soldiers to clean up the mess. Now if the reservists, and regular military got a cut of the Oil revenues, and other commercial windfalls then maybe the families of the thousand or so brave volunteers would see some benefit in their sacrifice. But that is not going to happen and the rich get rich, and the poor get slaughtered. The critics point to the fact that these reservists knew what they were getting themselves into when they joined up. No they did not! If the terms of enlistment were applied to the sale of a commercial item, it would have been thrown out as made under false pretences, and the buyer would have their money back. Outside a Maryland National Guard Unit was a huge sign touting free education for a few hours a month, and a weekend in the local woods. That sign has been taken down as there are no woods in Baghdad. The education is keeping your head down and praying the next car isn't a bomb. The political reality is that the next administration in Washington has either to reinstate some form of draft, or pull out prematurely and repeat Vietnam. Unfortunately the world's Oil supply is in the balance and the wrong decision could plunge the world economy into a depression that would make the 1930's look like boom times. It then seems very strange that the volunteers who can keep the oil flowing, and can build a more stable Iraq are treated so badly, for if they call it quits, who will replace them? Here in Washington there are gang murders almost daily. Drug dealers rule their neighborhoods like war lords. So why are they running around free, and the law abiding men and women are half a world away, struggling to pay their bills, and defending freedom. The freedom to have their cars repossessed for non-payment, the freedom to have their houses foreclosed because as a private they no longer make the money they did before they were shipped overseas. And when they come home they can see the factories closing, their jobs outsourced, and their children killed by stray bullets. And the worst thing is that nobody in the White House, or Congress gives a rip. They are too busy making money. The war in Iraq will drag on far into the forseable future, regardless of who wins the November election. There needs to be something better than a Backdoor Draft done on the cheap.

armstrong		29-Sep-2004 21:30
n, I would have to go with Guest on this one especially looking at the post in regards to CNN reports to Democrats sponsoring a bill for the draft. CNN is on your approve source of information, correct? Think why didn't Kerry talked about the Backdoor to the Natl Guards? Makes you wondering...

Guest		29-Sep-2004 21:14
The Backdoor Draft is a baseless charge made by John Kerry to cover up his inconsistent positions on Iraq. This conspiracy theory is completely irresponsible. Kerry didn't launch this attack when he spoke to the National Guard because he knows they know it is false and ridiculous.

n		29-Sep-2004 03:48
Guest: Didn't you hear what Bush is doing? There ALREADY is a backdoor draft. Persons who have served their time are not permitted to leave the service. Reserves are serving tours in the war zone for durations longer than active servicemen and women. That's a far cry from the reserves and guard that Bush served in. Back then, the guard was a safe haven for the children of the rich and connected. n

Guest		28-Sep-2004 01:36
In a cynical attempt to scare younger voters Kerry says Bush would bring back the draft if re-elected. One has to wonder how Kerry can reconcile the fact that all legislation in respect to re-introducing the draft comes from his own fellow democrats in congress. This accusation is at best propaganda for the under-educated voter, at worst another lie in a long string of lie's by Kerry misleading the electorate. original news source: San Diego Union Tribune By Terence Hunt ASSOCIATED PRESS 1:36 p.m. September 22, 2004 KING OF PRUSSIA, Pa. – President Bush mocked John Kerry's credentials to be commander in chief Wednesday, saying the way to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq "is not to wilt or waver or send mixed signals to the enemy." Kerry suggested that Bush, far from bringing American forces home, might instead bring back the military draft. But then there is this from, CNN quote: Rangel introduces bill to reinstate draft Rumsfeld says he sees no need for military draft Wednesday, January 8, 2003 Posted: 4:28 AM EST (0928 GMT) Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., wants to reinstate the military draft, saying fighting forces should more closely reflect the economic makeup of the nation. CNNfn's Peter Viles reports (January 8) PLAY VIDEO WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rep. Charles Rangel introduced a bill in Congress Tuesday to reinstate the military draft, saying fighting forces should more closely reflect the economic makeup of the nation. Rangel and his fellow democrats are the only ones pushing for a renewel of the draft. No republicans have signed on to this effort yet Kerry today led voters to believe Bush is responsible. This is yet another sign of a campaign of desperation that is going to rely on false flag scare tactics to divide the people. The Bills Sponsers Are, Sen Hollings, Ernest F. Democrat Rep Rangel, Charles B. Democrat The co-sponsers are, Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 1/7/2003 Democrat Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] - 1/28/2003 Democrat Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI] - 5/19/2004 Democrat Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 1/28/2003 Democrat Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 1/7/2003 Democrat Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] - 1/28/2003 Democrat Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 1/28/2003 Democrat Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 7/21/2004 Democrat Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 1/28/2003 Democrat Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 1/7/2003 Democrat Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 1/7/2003 Democrat Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 1/28/2003 Democrat Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 1/7/2003 Democrat Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 1/28/2003 Democrat Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] - 1/28/2003(withdrawn - 6/21/2004) Democrat

n		28-Sep-2004 01:20
CIA influence on the elections in Iraq? Is that the kind of leader you want for your country? Bring integrity back into government. Bush created chaos; now someone has to clean up after him. War on terror? Bush is creating terror with his arrogance and poor or little planning in Iraq. That planning includes the armed forces that are stretched beyond imagination. Are we going to keep rotating the reserves into Iraq for the next 10 years?

Guest		28-Sep-2004 01:10
Bring on those Allies, John.... No French or German turn on Iraq By Jo Johnson in Paris, Betrand Benoit in Berlin and James Harding in Washington Published: September 26 2004 21:13 \| Last updated: September 26 2004 21:13 French and German government officials say they will not significantly increase military assistance in Iraq even if John Kerry, the Democratic presidential challenger, is elected on November 2. Mr Kerry, who has attacked President George W. Bush for failing to broaden the US-led alliance in Iraq, has pledged to improve relations with European allies and increase international military assistance in Iraq.

armstrong		28-Sep-2004 01:01
Diversion from the War on Terror? Iraq is, in fact, an essential part of the War on Terror. At one point, even John Kerry agreed; on 7 September 2004 he stated that American soldiers who died in Iraq gave their lives "on behalf of their country, on behalf of freedom, the war on terror." Afghanistan and Iraq were essential components of a larger strategy than shooting a few killers and calling the war a success. Democrats base this attack on a false assertion that troops were pulled out of Afghanistan to fight in Iraq but not replaced. In reality, troop levels in Afghanistan were never affected by the fighting in Iraq; only the composition of the troops has changed. If anything, overall troop levels have increased. The only groups that switched focus from one country to the other were the Democrats and their enthusiasts in the "mainstream" media. The War on Terror is not about one country, one group, or one person. Democrats don't want to admit that Pakistan has given up its terrorist support, becoming an ally in the war. They don't want to acknowledge that Libya has also given up terror support as well as its WMD programs, as a direct result of Saddam's removal. (Ghaddafi phoned Italian Prime Minister Sylvio Berlusconi to say, "I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid.") Syria has begun to buckle under pressure to withdraw troops from occupied Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia is moving towards democratic reforms. If the mullahs that rule Iran stop working on a nuclear weapon, the Iranian people may get their chance to institute a democracy on their own. That's how the war will be won, not by pulling out of Iraq and leaving a lone fledgling democracy to be swallowed by its surrounding enemies. If John Kerry and his cronies can again force the US to abandon its responsibilities by turning public opinion against the war, if we're forced to watch helplessly as innocents who trusted our promises are butchered again, then the Democrats will at last be justified in calling Iraq a second Vietnam. Excerpts from an article by Joe Mariani

n		27-Sep-2004 18:51
The election being completed won't stop the peace train. The government isn't doing it's job so it's up to the people to take control of the issues. And the problems here and abroad won't be settled with a knife in your teeth and a grenade launcher on your back. The problems will be solved by the thinking men and women of the world. You call it moral righteousness; call it what you may but it's the way of every major religion in the world. You need to get out of your hole in the gound and see the bigger picture. Here is an example. Bush wanted the CIA to influence the upcoming elections in Iraq. He was over-ruled. Why doesn't he have the goal of wanting fair and safe elections in Iraq rather than ones that have his desired outcome? Are you fighting in Iraq for US corporations or for democracy? If the answer is democracy, don't you question the goal of CIA influence on Iraqi elections? Every honorable US citizen should find the president's goal shameful. It disrespects the troops who are fighting in Iraq and the reputation of the US in the world. If that's the moral high ground you are talking about, I'm staying put.

Guest		27-Sep-2004 18:14
The moral righteousness, the elitism - its shining through with horrible ostentation. I guess we don't "get it." You will offer candle-lighting and hand-holding and wishy-washy hug therapy when what America needs most right now is a Marine with a grenade launcher strapped to his back and an eleven inch knife clenched between his teeth. But the Marine is part of some vague concept of "normative paradigm" that disgusts many modern day liberals. He’s part of the problem not the solution. Of course, few of these protesters will tell you what that solution is, but, rest assured, they know it and you don’t. I am in the Marines, and I will be leaving for Iraq again in March. Thank God the election will be over and if something happens to me you won't be able to use me.

n		27-Sep-2004 02:33
A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?, 1967

n		25-Sep-2004 20:05
The US needed the support of the Arab nations, especially their money. Also, you never answered the questions regarding other, more imminent threats to the US, such as Pakistan. You also don't answer questions regarding numerous predictions that Iraq, of conquered by the US, would become a quagmire. Even G.W. Bush's father, in his autobiography, said that Iraq would have become a quagmire if he had overtaken Baghdad. Thus, that's the reason he stopped when he did. Finally, if Iraq elects a Islamic government with their new democratic powers, is that in the US interests? Just tell me what's been solved here and how we are safer now than when an over-the-hill dictator (Saddam), who by the way the US sold arms to battle Iran, was in power?

armstrong		25-Sep-2004 18:07
Lie #2: Going It Alone. The only major countries that did not send troops or support the liberation of Iraq in other ways were France, Germany, Russia and China. It's no coincidence that three of those are the same countries that were trading illegal arms and other banned materials (like Roland missiles and Mirage helicopter parts from France) to Saddam Hussein in return for lucrative exploitation rights in the West Qurna (Russia), al-Ahdab (China), and Majnoon (France) oil fields, as well as other deals all four had made. Iraq was one of German industry's biggest customers, and Iraq owed Germany billions of dollars, which would probably never be collected if Saddam was forced from power. Their opposition to Saddam's removal was far less based on principal than capital. If we had to "go it alone" in Iraq with our paltry coalition of 46 nations, it was because our "traditional allies" failed us, not the other way around. I'm curious about whether Kerry has any plans to apologise to all the nations he's insulted by calling them "a trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted," just because France didn't join. Lie #3: No Ties to al-Qaeda. There are two parts to this one. Iraq did have ties to al-Qaeda, but specific links to al-Qaeda alone was never one of the reasons Congress voted to remove Saddam from power, as laid out in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq. One of those reasons was his long-time sponsorship of international terrorism, not just the one group. The fact that he openly awarded $25,000 (later reduced to $10,000) to the families of Hamas suicide bombers was proof of this. In fact, Russian President Vladmir Putin warned President Bush that Saddam was planning new terrorist attacks against the US after 9/11. As for al-Qaeda, the Washington Times noted, "The fall of Baghdad has produced new evidence to buttress the Bush administration's prewar contention that Saddam Hussein's regime and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda had a long history of contacts." Kerry supporters often state that the 9/11 Commission said that Iraq had no links to al-Qaeda, but that's a misquote, if not a lie. NBC's Tom Brokaw had the audacity to "correct" Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi when he mentioned Saddam's ties to al-Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission stated that Saddam might not have had direct, specific cooperation on 9/11, but that he did have ties to al-Qaeda. Commission Chairman Thomas Kean stated: "There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there." More links to terror, including al-Qaeda, can be found in a publication by the Hudson Institute called Saddam's Philanthropy of Terror.

n		25-Sep-2004 10:58
http://www.bushflash.com/year.html

n		25-Sep-2004 03:31
Why did Bush say he was going to ask for another vote and then abandon his plan? To review, weapons inspectors were back in Iraq after Bush's threat of war. Saddam was contained. Instead of wating to build a real coalition, the US went into Iraq alone (90% of $$$ and troops), unlike the first Iraq war. Bush said "Bring it on", remember? He felt tough attacking a third-world army. As Colin Powell said it "You break it, you own it." The Bush administration miscalculated the costs and the problems associated with post-war Iraq, even when they had indications that the problems would be present. Why was attention diverted from Al Qaeda? Was Iraq more of threat than Korea? Iran? Pakistan (a country selling nuclear weapons info to the highest bidder; a country training terrorists by its western border). IRAQ IS NOT AL QAEDA. IRAQ WAS AN OPTIONAL WAR THAT WAS A GROSS MISCACLULATION. Al Qaeda is still a threat and now it is even more of a threat. Why doesn't anyone address the source of the problems that generate terrorism? And don't say it's because they are jealous of our freedom. That's lame. Bush screwed up so bad someone else should be given a chance to fix BUSH'S WAR and the draining of the US economy to pay for it.

armstrong		24-Sep-2004 22:02
n, the link that you provided is nothing but a bunch of Bush's quotes taken out of context. do you even have the slightest clue on how Kerry is going to make America safer and better? I dont think he does.

armstrong		24-Sep-2004 21:57
Lie #1: The Rush To War. There was no rush to war. There were twelve years and seventeen resolutions demanding that Saddam Hussein comply with the 1991 cease-fire agreement that he signed, which specified that he must completely disclose all his weapons programs and materials to the UN. He never did so. The UN Security Council unanimously issued resolution #1441 in November 2002, which gave Iraq one month as a "final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations", or face "serious consequences." Saddam still did not do so. Rather than "rush to war," President Bush waited three more months for him to acquiesce, giving him further "last chances." At that point, walking away and not forcing Saddam to disarm by force would have destroyed the credibility of both the US and the UN, and Saddam would have won a major victory over both without a shot being fired. No statement or warning by the UN or the US would have ever had weight again.

n		24-Sep-2004 21:23
Mr. Armstrong, Your last comment has no substance. It's just ad hominem. Remember when Bush said he was going to make the UN security council vote on whether it wes time to go to war? Ooops! Flip Flop. Go to the link in my previous message to see MANY flip flops from the Flip-Flop-in-CHief -- W Bush.

armstrong		24-Sep-2004 20:24
O great. A link full of spins for useless idiots to believe that their cynical way of thinking is somehow meaningful. I guess what can you use if all you got is a bunch of quotes taken out of context? Go ahead and vote for Kerry to honor your defeatist disposition. n, you're a fallen victim of lies of the leftwing media and the dishonorable Kerry camp. You're now a perpetrator of the recapitulation of antiamerican mendacity. Yes vote Kerry for a weaker and dumber America.

n		24-Sep-2004 19:02
Kerry Flip-Flop? Bush is the Flip-Flopper-n-Chief. http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263 "The great masses of people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than a small one." (Adolph Hitler) n

Guest		24-Sep-2004 18:42
n, rathers pay hundreds of dollars for a pair of flip flops.

EMangl		24-Sep-2004 16:32
http://www.mangl.at/bushfan.html

n		24-Sep-2004 14:52
Guest (below) sold his vote for a few hundred dollars.

Guest		24-Sep-2004 03:51
Congress Passes Middle-Class Tax Cuts Thursday, September 23, 2004 Associated Press WASHINGTON — Congress on Thursday approved a $145.9 billion package of tax relief to extend three popular middle-class tax cuts (search), giving President Bush his fourth major tax victory since taking office. Bush gets my vote!

Guest		24-Sep-2004 02:15
n There will always be those willing to criticize their own party for whatever reason. Perhaps they are in an election themselves and feel it is the best strategy. Two facts as I see it: 1. The "doom and gloom" being fed to the public is not representing the whole story. Today, Allawi gave a very positive picture of the Iraq situation. 2. If elected, Kerry will not do anything significantly different than Bush is doing right now.

n		24-Sep-2004 01:52
If anyone believes that ranking Republicans are criticizing the war in Iraq (see my previous post) because of they have been listening to the biased, left-wing media then I have some swamp land in Florida I am willing to sell them.

Guest		22-Sep-2004 23:08
n First, I think these people have been listening to the mainstream media too much. Secondly, we do not intend to stay in Iraq forever. Once we get the Iraqis trained, we can begin to gradually withdraw. And if we take fewer and fewer deaths in Iraq, people will support it. I believe Bush will start a crackdown on the terrorists if he wins. We have experienced bad periods before and they have passed. The very last thing we need to do is cut and run and even Kerry won't do that. That would destroy our credibility and give in to the terrorists. We must honor the people who have died by staying the course.

n		22-Sep-2004 19:32
It's not just Democrats who are questioning the President's grip on reality. Senator Chuck Hagel (NE), a Republican, says: "The worst thing we can do is hold ourselves hostage to some grand illusion that we're winning. Right now, we are not winning. Things are getting worse." [2] "The fact is, we're in trouble. We're in deep trouble in Iraq." [3] Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) supports releasing the National Iintelligence Evaluation [4] and says: "We made serious mistakes right after the initial successes by not having enough troops there on the ground, by allowing the looting, by not securing the borders." [3] Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), says "he believes the situation in Iraq is going to get worse before it gets better, adding that he believes the administration has done a 'poor job of implementing and adjusting at times.'" and says "We do not need to paint a rosy scenario for the American people...." [3] Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) says it's "exasperating for anybody look at this from any vantage point." [1] Those are Republicans talking. Here's what the generals and national security experts are saying, in a terrific recent piece in the UK's Guardian newspaper: Retired general William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, said: "Bush hasn't found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it's worse, he's lost on that front. That he's going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It's lost." He adds: "Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving Bin Laden's ends." Retired general Joseph Hoare, the former marine commandant and head of US Central Command, [said]: "The idea that this is going to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous. There are no good options.... The priorities are just all wrong." Jeffrey Record, professor of strategy at the Air War College, said: "I see no ray of light on the horizon at all. The worst case has become true..." W. Andrew Terrill, professor at the Army War College's strategic studies institute -- and the top expert on Iraq there -- said: "I don't think that you can kill the insurgency"... "The idea there are x number of insurgents, and that when they're all dead we can get out is wrong. The insurgency has shown an ability to regenerate itself because there are people willing to fill the ranks of those who are killed"... "Most Iraqis consider us occupiers, not liberators." General Odom [also] said: "This is far graver than Vietnam. There wasn't as much at stake strategically, though in both cases we mindlessly went ahead with the war that was not constructive for US aims. But now we're in a region far more volatile, and we're in much worse shape with our allies."... "I've never seen [tensions] so bad between the office of the secretary of defence and the military. There's a significant majority believing this is a disaster." [5] Just as important are the opinions of those whose loved ones are serving in Iraq, like Martha Jo McCarthy, whose husband is on National Guard duty there. She says: "Everyone supports the troops, and I know they're doing a phenomenal job over there, not only fighting but building schools and digging wells. But supporting the troops has to mean something more than putting yellow-ribbon magnets on your car and praying they come home safely." "I read the casualty Web site every day and ask myself, 'Do I feel safer here?' No. I don't think we can win this war through arrogance. Arrogance is different from strength. Strength requires wisdom, and I think we need to change from arrogance to solid strength." [6]

EMangl		22-Sep-2004 17:17
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1963&e=3&u=/nm/20040922/pl_nm/campaign_vote_dc_3

Guest		22-Sep-2004 15:41
I have being informed of (at least) three studies; a french one, an American One and a Latin American. All three have the same conclusion: 90% of the population asked outside the U.S. think the George W. has made bad to the world. I live outside, and I totally agree. TNT is no solution, not for W, not fot Putin.

Guest		21-Sep-2004 17:00
Abdul Here is a link to a video that every American should see: http://kerry-04.org/iraq.php

Abdul		21-Sep-2004 15:53
I think Kerry is for the war in Iraq now or is he? You're right W.Tracy, this man has no backbone or position. He is definitely someone I do NOT want to lead our country. I was going to vote him but he flip flopped so much that it blogged my mind. It seems like he'll say anything to get your vote. I'm going with Bush come November since he sticks to his words and is totally resolved about our country's stance on all kinds of terrorism.

Guest		21-Sep-2004 15:49
n No, the "rest of the world" is not saying things are worse either. Bush is leading in the polls so somebody must be supporting him. Bush made a promise to have the tax cuts and he kept it. If he had not done so, we would have heard how Bush doesn't keep his promises. Kerry's problem here is that he saw the intellegence and agreed with Bush. Now he is running around saying all these different things and trying to have it both ways. Yes, a deficit is not something desireable, but under unusual circumstances it happens. Kerry has been one of the most anti-military figures in public life since he returned from Vietnam. This is just a fact and it is an unconvienent one for democrats but true. As for the men being killed in Iraq, it is the fault of terrorists not President Bush. I don't know all the particulars of this "body armor" thing you hear all the time but I suspect it is partisan nonsense.

MJ		21-Sep-2004 15:42
n, what you just stated is contrary to the fact. the bottomline is kerry voted against it and he needs to take responsiblity for his action. so stop with the blaming and excuses. kerry's voting records and lack of plan is enough reasons to rule him as unfit to command.

n		21-Sep-2004 02:55
You are not ADMITTING things are worse, but the rest of the world is, including Republican leaders in the Senate and House. I am not a big Kerry fan, but that criticism that Kerry voted against the $87 billion is dishonest. Bush threatened to veto that same bill if the tax rollback for the top 1% of incomes occurred to PAY FOR THE BILL. What a novel idea --- Paying for government expenditures. It's what real conservatives do! If that provision had been in the bill and Bush vetoed it, as he said he would, would Bush be demonstrating that he doesn't support the troops? No, that's how political parties negotiate spending bills. But consider this: Bush sent troops to Iraq ON HIS TIMETABLE without body armour and inadequate supplies. I've seen estimates that nearly 1/3 of US casualties could have been prevented if the troops would have had adequate supplies. Some families had to buy body armour for their relatives serving in Iraq. Bush is a hypocrit for saying Kerry doesn't support the troops. The president's behavior in this regard is shameful for his criticism of Kerry and his treatment of the troops. n

Guest		21-Sep-2004 02:07
n I am not saying things are worse. I look at it this way. Bush has made the decision he has made. He must live with it. I don't claim to know what will happen in Iraq. Bob Novak came out with a piece that says Bush will get out of Iraq early in a potential second term-who knows. I want to see Bush have his chance to make things work there. Kerry is not the answer to me. He has no position on Iraq or should I say has 9 positions to date which equals none in my book. And he voted for the war and against the funding. He also has potential legal problems with the Swift Boat vets. It may surprise you to know that I disagree with Bush about many things. I was for putting in an overwhelming force in Iraq and declaring Marshall law. Then go in and root out the terrorists (and Saddam loyalists) one by one and inprison or execute them. That would bring the fewest losses for our soldiers which is my main concern. But Bush has tried it this way, so we shall see. But Kerry? No thank you.

n		21-Sep-2004 00:55
I like your honesty, but this points out the problem with pre-emptive war. It is playing God with people's lives. If one makes a mistake about the premise for a war, as Bush did, that mistake has dire consequences for millions of people and in the case of the U.S. how the U.S. is perceived in the rest of the world. Video images of sick, injured and dead children resulting from U.S. polices in Iraq are providing a recruiting poster for Al Qaeda. Meanwhile, 1 in 5 chidlren in the US is living in poverty while the US is spending BILLIONS in Iraq for ineffective security. When you say that things have to sometimes get worse before they get better, your man (Bush) has certainly achieved the first goal of that two-part plan.

Guest		20-Sep-2004 22:06
n Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. This situation with terrorists and other islamic extremists has to be changed or eventually there will be a war that will kill millions.

n		20-Sep-2004 16:55
Would the Vietnamese had been better off because the US would be paying for the healthcare of their Agent Orange victims? You say that the death toll will be no where near 400,000 in Iraq. What about deaths due to lack of medical care for citizens whose cities are in chaos or deaths due to typhoid and hepatitis E resulting from poor water quality? Welcome to US-style liberation: "Typhoid and hepatitis E are running rampant through Sadr City this summer, as residents rely heavily on a sewage-tainted water supply to endure temperatures of 115 degrees and up. The outbreak has strained local healthcare facilities and left Health Ministry officials able to only guess at the scope of the problem."

Guest		20-Sep-2004 15:36
If we had won the Vietnam war that would be a very different country today and millions of people there now and in future generations would be far better off. If we had won loses would certainly be justifed because of the millions in the future who would benefit. In Iraq, there will be nothing like 400,000 deaths or anything close to it. And the "reverse-domino theory" you mention is flawed because the difference is we are handing the country over to them to do as they please after we leave.

n		20-Sep-2004 15:04
Is all of SE ASIA under commie control now because ths US lost? Was the domino theory about one nation after the other falling under control of communists the result of our loss? If the US had killed half the population of Vietnam "to win" would the sacrifice have been justified? Now, in Iraq, the US is applying the "reverse domino" theory. The US plans to bring democracy to Iraq by bombing it and occupying the country. The justification for this war is just as flawed as Vietnam. In both wars (Vietnam and Iraq) the population was fighting foreign forces occupying the country. Foreign forces unite national groups that would normally be at odds. US boots on the ground antagonize Iraqis, and increase the risks of terror attacks. In Iraq, if 400,000 Iraqis die because of the US war, are the deaths justified? If the number reaches 1 million, do you still like this war? How many would have to die before YOU were willing to say the war was a mistake? Or, would you say that it doesn't matter how many Iraqis perish as long as you have your "freedom" to buy cheap gas and the dollar remains strong? Is it possible that persons

Guest		20-Sep-2004 14:45
n I stand by my comment. Vietnam was not wrong and we only lost because of left-wing radicals like Kerry.

n		20-Sep-2004 14:31
My comment didn't imply that presidents should serve in the military. I was pointing out that it is ironic that persons in the current administration who ran from war are quick to use miliatary force and to place others at risk. As for Vietnam being a mistake, you should read your history book. As for the current war in Iraq not advancing the war on terrorism, you should read the news: "Is the world today safer than before the overthrow of the appalling Saddam?" Patten asked in the European parliament last week. "Is global terrorism in retreat? Are we closer to building bridges between Islam and the west? Is the world's only super-power more widely respected? Have the citizens in our democracies been treated in a way that will encourage them to give governments the benefit of the doubt next time they are told that force needs to be used pre-emptively to deal with an imminent threat? I simply pose the questions. The answers are well known."

Guest		20-Sep-2004 03:46
n I would agree that every President should serve in the military. Of course Bush did even though he didn't see combat. But it at least gives him a perspective. Cheney did not serve but he is one of the most experienced men in government. Clinton did not serve and you do not mention him. I do not agree that the Vietnam war was wrong. Communism was our main enemy at that time and the effort to stop the spread of it was a worthy cause. The protestors are the ones that lost the war for America not the soldiers on the ground. No one wants violence, but sometimes it is necessary.

n		19-Sep-2004 22:08
Erich, I was trying to reply to your comment and I may have deleted it. I do, however, agree with your analysis: N: "either with us or you are a terrorist" - simple slogans for simple minds, as you see, they work. Erich Mangl

n		19-Sep-2004 19:17
It's an enigma to me how a any US citizen can question the patriotism of others who oppose violence in the world. Why don't you question the patriotism and motives of the perpetrators of the violence? These are mostly men who deliberately avoided combat in Vietnam yet they don't hesitate to place someone else's son or daughter in harms' way (and for an optional war). My brother-in-law served in Iraq and I served in Vietnam. Don't question my patriotism. Check the clarity of your own motives. Also, that post that you believe is so insightful criticized protests against the Vietnam war. Enough time has passed for everyone to agree that US involvement in that war was a mistake. The protests provided a means to convey that to the government. If anything, the protests helped to end the war sooner. You should spend your time thinking of ways to end the violence rather than attacking persons who promote peace. Attacking persons who promote peace goes against the teachings of every major religion.

Guest		19-Sep-2004 15:14
Greg Moss Thank you for your service and for your excellent post.

Guest		17-Sep-2004 11:28
http://www.25thaviation.org/johnkerry/

n		17-Sep-2004 05:47
Mr. Moss in the previous comment claims that wanting peace is an anti-American position. 100s of Iraqis and 29 US servicemen died in the last 8 days in Iraq (US war dead equals 1029). 138 US sercicemen were injured and did not return to action during the same period. When will the violence end? Mr. Moss also claims that peace proponents are advancing a political agenda. Do you claim, Mr. Moss, that the decision to attack Iraq was not part of a poltical agenda?

Greg Moss		17-Sep-2004 04:38
The person that posted this gallery and the people in the photos are transparently disengenuous. Thay are of the same ilk as 60's anti-war protestors who turned a blind eye to the killing fields of Cambodia and the communist reeduction camps in South Vietnam. This is an anti-American, anti-war protest. There have been/are atrocities in this world that the protestors have no interest in, e.g., the Rwanda genocide, the Sudan genocide. They are not interested because the US was/is not involved in trying to stop them. The 1000 dead, who cannot speak to the sacrifice they volunteered to make, is a tool used to attack US foreign policy. This kind of protest demoralizes troops in the field, the ones the protestors claim they are so concerned about. I know because I enlisted and served in Vietnam.The protestors are not concerned about our fellow countrymen serving in the military in Iraq, be they living or dead. They are concerned about advancing a political agenda.

Guest		16-Sep-2004 23:05
The only moron is you, "Guess". You're statement makes absolutely no sense. Why don't you learn how to read and write before you pass judgement on someone smarter than you. Oh wait, maybe you are smart because Dan Rather said so. You're a genius because you're voting for John Kerry who was for the war and then he wasn't. Gosh, you probably as indecisive as Mr. Flip Flopper.

Guess		16-Sep-2004 21:47
The responsible for that genocide is Moron Georgie boy…

Guest		16-Sep-2004 15:00
sorry forgot somethinh! Bravo to the womens...

Guest		16-Sep-2004 14:59
to n is this the sorry for all the others??????

n		15-Sep-2004 16:43
If you read the small print on one of the photos of a sign that two women are holding it says "1000s of Iraqis" There is an "s" representing multiple thousands.

Guest		15-Sep-2004 13:50
Hi and peace. I just want to ask the photographer why hi thinks that only 1000 persons dieed? Are irak people no persons?????????????????? What a sick mind.....

Guest		15-Sep-2004 02:13
n But the gallery title says, "CandleLight Vigil in Minneapolis to honor persons killed in Iraq", not "honoring the victims of the war, and lamenting the voilence". True, the sign does not blame anyone, but all one has to do is go to one of your other galleries to see who you do blame.

n		15-Sep-2004 01:50
The gallery is honoring the victims of the war, and lamenting that the voilence continues with no end in sight. I am not ascribing blame to the violence. If one blames the terrorists for "no end in sight" that denotes a different message than if one blames the US government. Can the gallery be political and yet have both of these options be true? Who were you ascribing blame to when you read that sign?

Guest		14-Sep-2004 22:56
n Sorry, but you and Ira Morenberg are in the same boat. The tipoff is the photo of the sign that says, "no end in sight". This means that the "vigil" is actually a protest as is this gallery. A "vigil to honor persons killed" would not include political statements.

Guest		14-Sep-2004 15:37
I would honor our war dead regardless of the popularity of the war. Personally, I do not think we should have gone to Iraq any more than we should go to Iran or North Korea tomorrow, we are there because Bush lied to us. HOWEVER, I would never sour a memorial service by bringing up my opinion knowing that other mourning people may be offended by it. At Ground Zero on Saturday there were a few insensitive jerks with a "Bush engineered 9/11" sign - never mind free speech, that's just insensitive! I only saw one pro-bush person, and one Kerry pin on anyone else there (I left my Kerry pin at home), so I was happy to see that the general public can respect that it was a memorial, not a political opportunity. Oh yea, back on topic, those are some really nicely composed photos!

n		13-Sep-2004 21:25
I am a Vietnam veteran who served 2 tours. My brother-in-law served a tour in Iraq. Everyone who serves their country is a hero whether it be in Vietnam or in Iraq. You don't have to be killed or injured in war to be a hero. The persons who are injured or killed in war ARE victims. Calling them heros doesn't take away the victim label. According to two of my dictionaries, a victim is "someone injured, destroyed or sacrificed under various conditions" or "one who perishes or suffers in health, etc., from some enterprise or pursuit voluntarily undertaken." I imagine that you believe that a gallery such as this is political because it reminds the country, and you, of the true cost war. Everyone should ask such questions -- how much does the war cost? --- We may come to different conclusions about the merits of war, but the position of the left of wanting the troops to return safely and to end the war is not an anti-military position. It's a pro-life position.

Guest		13-Sep-2004 18:38
That honors the war victims? n, I am a Navy Corpsman who has served in Iraq, and I have seen people died. You are just using this site that "honors the war victims" for political purposes. You and (I say it again) the left, have never respected the military and never will. Admit it, this is all about the Bush bashing, so dont use us. By the way, its war heros, not victims - we volunteer to defend this country, so dont dishonor the dead by calling them victims. I will be returning to Iraq this March, if something happens to me, dont "honor/use" me.

n		13-Sep-2004 18:02
To Guest: to state that some persons on the "left" may be insensitive and to then have that reflect your opinion of ALL persons holding a particular view is immature. That would be like saying that ALL soldiers are criminals and murderers because of the behavior of a few at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq. You should consider a discussion of issues rather than personal attack. And please consider doing it in another gallery rather than this one that honors the war victims.

Guest		13-Sep-2004 17:50
If there’s one similarity between Iraq and Vietnam it’s the disgusting behavior by the Left: A candlelight vigil took place Wednesday night to remember U.S. war dead in Iraq during the week of the 1,000th casualty. One North Texas family, whose relative – Chad Drake – was killed outside Baghdad Monday, was among the mourners at Dallas City Hall Plaza. The vigil, though, turned abrasive toward the family members, according to a family friend. The friend sent an e-mail message to NBC 5 News that described the treatment some vigil attendees directed at the family. Drake’s mother was “harassed and yelled at, booed and hissed, told her son died for nothing,” the message read. Drake’s mother reportedly left the event in tears. The family attended the vigil because they thought it was meant to honor U.S. casualties. The event was organized by the Dallas Peace Center, which opposes the war. - NBC5 Chad Drake was killed just three days ago: Spc. Chad H. Drake, 23, of Garland, Texas, died Sept. 7 in Baghdad, Iraq, when his patrol vehicle came under attack by enemy forces using small arms fire. Drake was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 82nd Field Artillery, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.

Guest		12-Sep-2004 14:32
I am in the process of posting the names and photographs of all 1,000 fallen soldiers. http://www.pbase.com/ira_morenberg/soldiers

EMangl		11-Sep-2004 20:59
1 will be already too much

sistersilverwolf		10-Sep-2004 09:23
a beautiful and moving tribute to out fallen soldiers

DiAnne		10-Sep-2004 04:15
Gorgeous!!!

click on thumbnails for full image