Looks like the DNC is incapable of distinguishing foreign soldiers from American ones. Via Michelle Malkin comes this photo from their website illustrating our troops and the GOP's supposed mistreatment of them:
This guy looks odd. Is he one of ours? Maybe just in service and has no rank? Can't dress himself? Digs poppies?
I went looking for the source of the photo and found this original of him in all his giant-foreign-medal glory. No, not one of ours, but then neither are the soldiers in the background. Looks like he had two tours with the UN? No disrespect intended to you, Mr. Canadian Soldier, --I'm glad for your service -- but I don't think you're owed anything by the GOP.
At least they didn't use this one or this one. Maybe a passing familiarity with what the veterans they're claiming to care for look like, along with a refund from the New York Times school of military identification, is in order.
UPDATE:
LGF is claiming a Democratic photoshop on the cap insignia, but this iStock photo is without it. Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence (as I need to keep telling my own self). They went for a inexpensive iStock photo of a soldier, and had no clue what an American one looked like.
(LGF link via Riehl World View.)
UPDATE II:
Via Simon in comments, the image of the Canadian soldier on the DNC site has been replaced with a flag -- an American one, not Liechtenstein's.
They are Canadian soldiers, from the uniform. The red poppy is also a symbol worn on Remembrance Day, so I'm guessing this is a photo of a Remembrance Day ceremony.
Posted by: rg at October 7, 2006 08:16 PMI knew it was Remembrance Day, but I couldn't tell just by looking at them if they're Canadian or British. The I-stock categories list identifies him as Canadian.
I wanted to find the source of the photo, so I took *off* my thinking cap and went looking. ;)
I just wandered here through Technorati, and this looks like a blog I'm going to have to spend some time reading :-D
Posted by: Patrick at October 7, 2006 09:58 PMSo how come there is a big white x and logo in your copy of the istock photo, but not in the one the Dems used?
Posted by: Stoo at October 8, 2006 01:09 AMThe original
http://www.students.yorku.ca/~arpad/soldier.jpg
Posted by: Running with Scissors at October 8, 2006 01:30 AMBecause it's a watermark, Stoo. You have to go through your account and pay them a buck to get a clean copy.
Posted by: Donnah at October 8, 2006 01:37 AMFloridacracker,
I bet that iStockPhoto has been altered because there's no patch on his beret. I'm not familiar with the Canadian uniform regs, but I'd be willing to bet his beret should have a unit or field patch on it.
Posted by: Don Miguel at October 8, 2006 04:31 AMYou're right, Don, here is original photo side by side with the photoshop:
http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2006-09/dnc-tn.jpg
He was wearing this:
http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/rcrbadges/rcrbadges_intro.htm
Considering that the Royal Canadian Regiment have a long and proud military history, are fighting in Afghanistan today, and took a casualty in defence of freedom last week… I’m not entirely sure that they would appreciate having their regimental badge removed from their berets on Remembrance Day and put on another country’s political party’s website as supposedly their token of support (but not to them):
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/09/29/soldier-afghanistan.html?ref=rss
This is disrespectful not just to your soldiers, but to ours. And we're your allies. Our soldiers fight in battles together.
Have a good night, everyone.
Posted by: Christoph at October 8, 2006 04:40 AMYes, it's been altered. But this altered version is available for purchase on iStock, as you see.
Posted by: Donnah at October 8, 2006 04:54 AMKeywords at Istock on the right (notice the word Canadian and lack of the word American):
achievment
battle
canadian
commander
day
decoration
distinction
fight
fighter
honor
honours
insignia
man
memorial
november
officer
remember
remembrance
serious
service
soldier
soldiers
uniform
veteran
veterans
That's the problem with you Army types ~ you all look alike.
Posted by: tree hugging sister at October 8, 2006 10:31 AMAs long as we're picking out our favorite mug for the poster (that is what we're doing, right ?)
I have one I'd like to submit for mistreatment. And he isn't a real American soldier either.
http://www.lowculture.com/archives/images/kerry_convention_salute.jpg
Now, the DEMs of yore prefer this guy...(take your hat off son)
http://www.greenwichworkshop.com/media/images/GeneralLee.jpg
no water mark there
Posted by: csason at October 8, 2006 12:04 PMHi,
Some of you asked me about the photo in question. I am the one who took these pictures. So to clarify some things:
I am selling my photos at Istockphoto.com which is by the way a nice and affordable site for buying photographs.
So the Democratic Party should have bought the photo on this site. Yes, he is a canadian soldier. Now, Istockphoto doesn't accept photographs wich contain certain copyrighted elements like brand names, insignia, etc. Therefore I myself got rid of the insignia on the soldiers cap when I put it on for sale.
Regarding the second photo, on which the same soldier is smiling , the insignia is there on the cap, but if you zoom on it, you will see that it is blurred out, so copyrighted elements are not visible. Again I did that myself because of the above mentioned reason.
I hope this clarifies some things,
Best regards,
Arpad Benedek
I'm glad you think the most important aspect of this story is the photo and not the statement that 42 percent of the soldiers report substandard equipment. I'm sure the dead and wounded thank you and your holy boss W too.
Posted by: Good Idea at October 8, 2006 12:08 PMArpad,
FYI for the future, military decoration and rank is not considered a copyright item and it is strongly recomended to remain unretouched during photo processing. Of course if you are taking shots of the Nike corperation's private army you may want to think about PSing the swoop, but that's somthing else.
Dave
Posted by: Dave at October 8, 2006 12:17 PMThe Democrats have never given a fig about the military...I should know, my husband is a retired Naval Officer. It has only been during Republican adminstrations that we received decent payraises and benefits. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Good Idea and Tree Hugging Sister. God help us if the Democrats regain power in the Congress and/or the Presidency. We'll have the terrorists here instead of over there for sure, and while they are worried about the civil liberties of some terrorist's and his phone calls, they will get us all killed. Pray they don't win majorities in the upcoming election.
Posted by: Cindy Anderson at October 8, 2006 12:27 PMOn the five-year anniversary of 9/11, we mourn the victims of Islamic terrorism. But, we must not forget to thank the people who risk their lives every day to defeat the enemy and keep us safe. The men and women fighting on the front line in the new World War deserve our thanks, our respect, and our admiration. It's time to thank the American soldier. The American soldier fights for those who can't fight for themselves. The American soldier fights for what is right and decent.
Michael S. Classs
www.MagicPictureFrame.blogspot.com
**************************************************
Hi,
Some of you asked me about the photo in question. I am the one who took these pictures. So to clarify some things:
I am selling my photos at Istockphoto.com which is by the way a nice and affordable site for buying photographs.
So the Democratic Party should have bought the photo on this site. Yes, he is a canadian soldier. Now, Istockphoto doesn't accept photographs wich contain certain copyrighted elements like brand names, insignia, etc. Therefore I myself got rid of the insignia on the soldiers cap when I put it on for sale.
Regarding the second photo, on which the same soldier is smiling , the insignia is there on the cap, but if you zoom on it, you will see that it is blurred out, so copyrighted elements are not visible. Again I did that myself because of the above mentioned reason.
I hope this clarifies some things,
Best regards,
Arpad Benedek
**************************************************
Arpad, I second Dave's 12:17 PM comment.
Before I say more, I respect you for coming to this blog so quickly to defend and explain your work.
I'm Canadian ex army too (in the reserve forces and my military occupation was also infantry like the person in the picture).
The photo you took was excellent and I was surprised to see the soldier's unit insignia removed.
I think you're a good photographer and a decent man (and I agree with you about Istockphoto as well).
One thing that you may not be aware of is how soldiers the world over, particularly Canadian soldiers like the one you shot, feel about their unit insignia ESPECIALLY their cap badge.
It means a great deal to them. They all treat it with enormous respect because of what it means about the often tens of thousands of soldiers who have worn it from their regiment before them. Many of whom gave their lives for Canada.
A fellow soldier mishandling their "unit brass" would be opening himself to ridicule, maybe, but more likely fists. I mean that completely literally including today.
As you may be aware and as I linked to at 4:40 AM comment, private Josh Klukie was the most recent member of the Royal Canadian Regiment to volunteer for service knowing he would be heading to war for Canada (24-Canadian civilians died in the 2001 World Trade Center attacks including a friend of mine's close friend; these attacks as you know were plotted by the Taliban's ally al-Quaeda from Afghanistan) on September 29, 2006.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/09/29/soldier-afghanistan.html?ref=rss
These men are very proud of their regiment. They fight for it at least as much as for their country.
I do not believe that unit insignia is a copyrighted element as defined by Istockphoto, but then I don't know their complete policy.
I WILL point out though that that poppy design is a protected trademark of the Royal Canadian Legion and several other elements of that picture, uniform design, etc., could be argued to be copyrighted elements of the Canadian Forces... but that the CF has no policy prohibiting anyone from taking its members pictures and you are completely free to reproduce them.
This is all food for thought for you and to give you a greater understand of the historic Royal Canadian Regiment that is serving Canada today.
Posted by: Christoph at October 8, 2006 01:20 PMhttp://www.democrats.org/a/communities/veterans_and_military_families/
Click on this URL now and it looks like the Dems just replaced the Canadian soldier on their website with what appears to be a partly burned American flag. Way to go!
Posted by: Simon at October 8, 2006 01:48 PMThanks for the update, Simon. That's a flag in shadows they've replaced it with. It's also found at iStock:
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/when/nighttime/938318_historic_flag.php?id=938318
Actually the Canadian Army crest is copyrighted, as a Canadian group supporting Canadian Troops found out when they were ordered to take down advertising signs under threat of lawsuit by the Royal Canadian Army Command because it displayed the crest.
(can't find link, but it was about 4 or 5 months ago).
You may be right, mhatlau, when it's used in conjunction with an advertisement although of course this was the RCR unit insignia as opposed to the "Canadian Army crest".
I'm not a lawyer. Mostly, I want Arpad who demonstrated class by coming forth to explain his work to understand the esteem that regimental crests on headress are held by soldiers the world over.
Arpad's a fellow Canadian so I hope he takes it to heart.
Posted by: Christoph at October 8, 2006 02:20 PMSimon, calm down. It's not a partly burned flag. It's a high quality natural fiber one that is in shadows.
It is not disrespectful and, whether someone points out the Democrats' disgraceful folly and cavalier attitude toward your veterans and their allies' troops or not, if all this accomplishes is removing a photoshopped Canadian soldier's picture from their alleged U.S. "veteran's support page" and replacing it with a flag, it will have accomplished something.
To bad they had to be disgraced or embarrassed into it and didn't know enough to do this on their own.
Posted by: Christoph at October 8, 2006 02:25 PMIt was very nice of Arpad to come clarify things for us. Thanks for doing that, Arpad.
Posted by: Donnah at October 8, 2006 02:32 PMAs a Canadian, let me tell you I am outraged -- OUTRAGED!, I say, at the Republican party's callous neglect of the Canadian army.
Just for that, this is one Canadian who won't be voting Republican in your next election. I feel confident the majority of Canadian voters will be joining me in my boycott of the GOP.
Take *that* George W. Bush!
Posted by: rg at October 8, 2006 03:10 PMDamn where were all the military lovin Democrats when I was in uniform... oh I remember now, they were hangin with Jimmah and Chip. Dreamin of dustclouds in the desert, no doubt.
Cindy, obviously 9-11 WAS our fault.. it wasn't the one. So that means we have to sustain a little *hotter* fire prior to the wimps of our land laying down and letting us defend it.. this is how it has been since the 1600's. A little Jihad isn't going to change centuries of being chicken.
Posted by: csason at October 8, 2006 04:07 PMSuzanne, you commented on keywords earlier and I think you're right. Notice that if you search istockphoto.com using the keyword "soldier" the picture doesn't come up, but if you use "Canadian soldier" it comes up on the first page.
soldier
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&text=soldier&filetypeID=&x=12&y=14
Canadian soldier
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&text=canadian+soldier&filetypeID=&x=0&y=0
Sure it does, Christoph, it's just way back a bunch of pages. It's the actual title of the image and the search term I used to find it.
Posted by: Donnah at October 8, 2006 04:42 PM42% of how many soldiers and were they our soldiers? Rounded to the nearest tenth from what? If the dim's want everyone to be accurate, tell the truth, and provide sources, then they should start with themselves.
Not to worry, the dim's are going to reinstate the draft (already stated). Lets see how that will work. 85% + - of the American people identify with a religion. All of this group can claim to be 'anti-killing' and refuse to serve in their military. Of the 15% + - left we can assume 50% are elderly or beyond draft age. That leaves 7.5% of the people. We assume that a 'democrat' would never draft a female (they love to abuse them themselves) so take away 4% + - since females outnunber males. That leaves 3.5% of the Americans to 'draft'. At least 1.5% + - will not qualify because of disability or criminal records. So the 2% + - (all left wing democrats) will have to provide the total military (50% of these will go awol or desert within 30 days) needs for manpower. That's why I tell everyone I know to avoid the military after Jan 2009 unless they are willing to die for a cowardly democratic president and have their body dragged through the streets by the idiot Islamic animal.
To avoid a mistake (Democratic habit) all numbers are plus oe minus.
Will this work, a military made up of total cowards and misfit leftovers led by idiots like Wesley Clark? Damn i'm glad I finished my 22 years of service to the country a long time ago.
To be fair to the Democrats (not a sentence that I write very often), it isn't only them or the left in general who make mistakes like that.
I remember a few months ago watching a 'tribute to America's troops' video on (and produced by) a certain conservative humor site. It was a great video, but one of the stills it showed was clearly of British soldiers (they were wearing two-color desert DPM, and carrying SA-80s, a rifle that no other nation uses (because it sucks)). Even if I hadn't known that they were British soldiers, it should have been quite obvious that they weren't Americans.
Posted by: jic at October 8, 2006 08:30 PMIt is a sad choice we have this November. i just let the DNC have it. I feel like giving the same to the RNC. Where have all of the real men gone???
My not to the DNC:
I don't understand why you guys can't come up with a strategy on any issue. I am totally fed up with the damn Republicans that are running the Senate. Unfortunately, in these troubling times I just can't take the chance that the Democrats will cut and run. Be it Iraq, Iran, Israel, Korea, you name it. I just can't vote for somebody who isn't strong on national defense. And, i think you guys have proven time and again you cannot be trusted to defend this country.
So either it is the Republicans or Independant or no vote. Tough choice as I have been voting religiously since high school (sorry for the religious reference).
Posted by: Jeff at October 9, 2006 08:51 PMHere is the final word....I stumbled across this by complete accident. The fellow in the picture is
Mcpl Salick. He is from the Royal Canadian Regiment (RCR) aka "The Regiment". He is a friend and fellow Canadian infantry battallion member, and as I am, would likely feel disgraced that someone would remove his cap badge (a silver 8 pointed star topped by the Queen's Crown, with brass center with a roped border on a pebble encrusted circle bearing the initials "VRI", the imperial cypher of Queen Victoria, as well as the collar dogs (the insignia worn on the upper lapels, the one on his right side is there but is blurred).The collar dog displays a beaver with the words "pro patria" latin meaning "for country" below it. Times have changed, but when we earned our regimental cap badges, we damned well earned them, and to have it removed by a civilian who most likely has no idea of what it represents is saddening. My comment regarding his defence of not knowing the copyright rules on military insignias is this. If you are going to sell photos on the internet, take a moment to understand what you are doing before you take part. (If I am not legally allowed to sell Ford cars, I do not simply remove the Ford insignia and sell it anyway). That way you will not bring disrespect onto yourself and onto your own country's soldiers. Oh and by the way, neither of us will be voting Democrat this year. There ya have it. A concerned Canadian...
Pro Patria!!
Posted by: operator at October 17, 2006 07:46 AMHere is the final word....I stumbled across this by complete accident. The fellow in the picture is
Mcpl Salick. He is from the Royal Canadian Regiment (RCR) aka "The Regiment". He is a friend and fellow Canadian infantry battallion member, and as I am, would likely feel disgraced that someone would remove his cap badge (a silver 8 pointed star topped by the Queen's Crown, with brass center with a roped border on a pebble encrusted circle bearing the initials "VRI", the imperial cypher of Queen Victoria, as well as the collar dogs (the insignia worn on the upper lapels, the one on his right side is there but is blurred).The collar dog displays a beaver with the words "pro patria" latin meaning "for country" below it. Times have changed, but when we earned our regimental cap badges, we damned well earned them, and to have it removed by a civilian who most likely has no idea of what it represents is saddening. My comment regarding his defence of not knowing the copyright rules on military insignias is this. If you are going to sell photos on the internet, take a moment to understand what you are doing before you take part. (If I am not legally allowed to sell Ford cars, I do not simply remove the Ford insignia and sell it anyway). That way you will not bring disrespect onto yourself and onto your own country's soldiers. Oh and by the way, neither of us will be voting Democrat this year. There ya have it. A concerned Canadian...
And for the record, he has five tour medals and one for service outside Canada.
Pro Patria!!
Posted by: operator at October 17, 2006 07:48 AM