Michelle Malkin » Nancy Pelosi supports the troops

Nancy Pelosi supports the troops–the Canadian troops, that is

By Michelle Malkin • June 22, 2007 01:05 PM

Oops, they did it again.

Last year, the DNC embarrassed itself with a website purporting to support US troops. Only one problem, as a sharp-eyed tipster told me: The soldier depicted in the patriotic display was Canadian.

Oopsy.

Looks like the Democrats are still using webmasters who don’t have a clue what American troops look like–and they are working in Nancy Pelosi’s office. McQ at Q&O has the screenshots (which are likely to disappear soon, if Pelosi’s staff is awake today). The one above comes from the front page of Pelosi’s official speaker’s website. Here’s the close-up of the soldier with “CANADA” on her epaulets:

Can the Dems get anymore snort-worthy?

Like Blackfive said in response to last year’s DNC website gaffe: “…how screwed up must you be to post about how much your party supports the troops, but not know who your troops are?”

Answer: Pretty screwed up.

Posted in: Nancy Pelosi

Printer Friendly

comments (207)

trackbacks (23)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#96874

On June 22nd, 2007 at 9:58 pm, JWS said:

The Canadian Military? My jacuzzi has more jets. Listen folks, you don’t debate liberals – you pat them on the head and send them to bed so they don’t hurt themselves or others. You don’t have a debate with your 4 year old as to his rights to run into the road in front of a car; you don’t give your kids “time outs”; you don’t argue with a child that the sun does not rise and fall…Conservatives are the adults. And much like too many of today’s parents, we have treated liberals as equals. We need to calmly, yet firmly, take back our great nation. Starting with our elected officials…
#96882

On June 22nd, 2007 at 10:21 pm, pmain said:

The Canadian Military? My jacuzzi has more jets.

And Disney Land has more submarines
#96893

On June 22nd, 2007 at 10:57 pm, Tantor said:

jdawg and freedomamerie,

Yes, despite all your desperate spinning, that’s “CANADA” on that epaulet. I work over by the Pentagon and see foreign officers eating at lunch all the time. I was particularly struck by the “CANADA” on the epaulets of the Canucks because there is no USA stamped on the Air Force uniforms I wore once upon a time.

However, if that’s not convincing enough, have a look at the first couple of pages of this Canadian military newspaper. The photos are not entirely clear, but you can see the rank is clearly the same style as Pelosi’s Canadian officer and you can see a bit of the “CANADA” lettering at the bottom of the epaulet.

http://www.thecontactnewspaper.cfbtrenton.com/archives/july_11_2003/thecontactnewspaper_july11_2003.pdf

I just love it when you lefties screw up and try to worm your way out. By all means, keep trying new excuses. I love torturing you with the truth.
#96895

On June 22nd, 2007 at 11:09 pm, Tantor said:

Vatar: “Tantor, I think you misunderstand “near supersonic speeds.” Near supersonic speeds do not cause sonic booms. In the Blue Angels, the diamond flies at lower speeds, while the opposing solos go at near the speed of sound.”

Vatar, I think after 500 missions as a weapon system officer in the F-4 Phantom that I do understand near supersonic speeds. In fact, you can be flying at less than the speed of sound and generate a sonic boom. In fighters, the pitot boom, which measures air speed, is usually on the nose, where it gets a clean bite of the airstream. It measures the airspeed at which your jet moves through the air. However, the air flowing over your jet necessarily moves faster than you are flying because the jet pushes it aside. Therefore, you can be flying just under the speed of sound while the air travelling over your jet is moving faster than the speed of sound. That means that you generate a sonic boom before you hit the speed of sound.

There is a somewhat famous incident back in the 1960s where a grad buzzing the Air Force Academy in an F-105 flew just under the speed of sound, thinking he’d give the place a thrill without booming it. He was wrong. He was flying just close enough to Mach to blow out dozens of windows.
#96913

On June 22nd, 2007 at 11:59 pm, emjem24 said:

This is my first official post so here goes!!!

I have to agree with a fellow poster (name?) who said that good ole Nancy and her fellow compadres really don’t give the military much thought (except as a tool to use to win elections).

I took a look at the Canadian military uniform and I can barely make out “CANADA” on the epaulettes. I’m sure folks like freedommarie are using that convenient ploy as an excuse to say that nobody could tell the difference.

As a military spouse, I can definitely tell the difference…I’ve actually seen Canadian troops walking around (my husband works in a joint environment where other fellow allies such as the Canadians, Brits, French, etc. work).

Anyhoo, I think understanding our military structure (in a positive forum that’s not San Francisco) by becoming familiar with it through civics classes at the earliest grade livels, these “little” oversights wouldn’t happen. However, until folks like freedommarie and chap actually give a crap instead of using our military as simply more cheap shots at Pres. Bush or calling them bomb fodder, we’ll get ignoramuses like Pelosi in power (and this isn’t the only thing she’s ignorant about btw).
#96925

On June 23rd, 2007 at 12:58 am, Vatar said:

All I can tell you is what the Blue Angels’ website says. I’m going to take their word for it.
#96926

On June 23rd, 2007 at 1:02 am, jdawg said:

Tantor,

Re Post 193,

Please do not insult me by referring to me as a “lefty”.

I’ve never disputed the “CANADA” on the uniform.
#96930

On June 23rd, 2007 at 1:17 am, Vatar said:

What are the fastest and slowest speeds flown during an air show?
The fastest speed is about 700 mph (just under Mach 1; Sneak Pass) and the slowest speed is about 120 mph (indicated speed; Section High Alpha), both flown by the solo pilots during the show.
http://www.blueangels.navy.mil/index.htm – FAQs
#96956

On June 23rd, 2007 at 2:59 am, fuseman said:

Pelosi – confuses Canadian military for US
Hillary – picks a song from a Canadian singer for her campaign

wonder why they ignore mexico?
#97010

On June 23rd, 2007 at 10:33 am, sharinlite said:

I emailed her to let her know we noticed her “gaffe”. As usual with these tinfoil hatted leftist loons, there was no response.
#97022

On June 23rd, 2007 at 10:57 am, BerryG said:

Maybe this Canadian soldier was finaly getting her chance to see the doctor for her check up to go to summer camp.
#97048

On June 23rd, 2007 at 12:02 pm, 3Steps said:

@JWS… ROFL

As far as the article goes..

It’s the principle of the thing. This is not the first time that democrats have substituted Canadian soldiers pictures for US soldiers.

Lets face it, the chances of it being deliberate are pretty much zero. There are just idiots on the DNC and Pelosi’s web design teams. But that’s reasonable really when you consider who they work for.
#97051

On June 23rd, 2007 at 12:14 pm, 3Steps said:

@ notaslickfan post #166

Hollyweird HAS to make the uniforms incorrect. It’s the law. Unless the actors are actual members of the military and hold the ranks that they are playing in the movie.. then they are not allowed to wear the ‘real uniform’.

So they use uniforms that are ‘close’ but not exact as exact would be impersonating an officer, etc, etc.

Same thing with police and other law enforcment agencies.

I am NOT a fan of Hollyweird by any stretch.. but there would be alot of pissy people if George ‘I hate America’ Clooney wore a REAL uniform. I know I would be. You don’t wear the uniform if you don’t EARN it.
#97065

On June 23rd, 2007 at 12:57 pm, Mrs. Happy Housewife said:

As much I’d love the opportunity to ridicule Pelosi, I doubt she’s to blame. I think the error is due to her ignorant webmaster, which says more about the pathetic state of education in this country than about anti-American liberals.
#97128

On June 23rd, 2007 at 4:00 pm, kevkersey said:

Mrs. Happy Housewife said:

“As much I’d love the opportunity to ridicule Pelosi, I doubt she’s to blame. I think the error is due to her ignorant webmaster”

It is her site, and she is responsible for its content. Unless she has some disclaimer saying she is not responsible for stupid mistakes by her web team, she is to blame for whatever content is on there.

If she can’t be bothered being informed on what is on her site, how can she be thought to be responsible enough to run congress. Oh wait, that was a stupid question. Never mind.
#97147

On June 23rd, 2007 at 6:04 pm, jdawg said:

As much I’d love the opportunity to ridicule Pelosi, I doubt she’s to blame. I think the error is due to her ignorant webmaster, which says more about the pathetic state of education in this country than about anti-American liberals

I tend to think both. Overall, it shows remarkable incompetence. These are the people who think they are our overlords, yet they cannot tell the difference between the uniforms of our military and that of another country.

Tell me again about that 14 percent approval rating? How is it these bozo clowns keep getting re-elected?
#97592

On June 25th, 2007 at 9:55 am, Jeff S. said:

In #32 above, Timothy Carlson said:

Maybe all of the dhimmicrats should just move to Canada, since all things Canadian (especially health care) seem to be held in higher regard by these people than anything related to the US.

And, ideologically, the fit is better.

It’s a win-win…
I know I would feel better.

As a Canadian, sir, I would submit that it’s a win/win/lose situation. We have a long, uphill battle to wage to undo 13 years of Liberal Party government (full of the usual left-wing damage), but we are making progress. Please, find an occupation for your liberal lawmakers that does not include having them move to Canada.

For a conservative like myself, I would consider moving to the USA (which would also be a better fit, ideologically speaking), but it’s a long, expensive, tangled web of red tape to do it legally (oops, did I say that out loud?). I guess I’ll have to stay put and fight the good fight at home, or enter via a cut in the fence on Mexico’s northern border. I’m sure I could find work at Ms. Pelosi’s place.