NationStates Jolt Archive

Or, we don't know a Canadian soldier when we see one... LOL

This is the ad:
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/20061007DemocratScreen.jpg

And this is the original soldier. Obviously, a Canadian.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/soldier.jpg

I guess if the Canadian soldier is upset, he's upset about something else.

Oh wait, looks like he's not upset:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/happy.jpg

Gotta love political ads, especially when put together by people who don't know their own soldiers when they see them, and publish them completely out of context.

Idiots.

What a huge mistake. laugh. laugh. laugh.

The article was about the GOP hurting the troops. Canadians fight in Iraq and Afghanistan with us, so it's not a mistake. The only reason you would think so is if you, ahead of time, are assuming they're specifically talking about American troops, as opposed to the "coalition" troops.

The article was about the GOP hurting the troops. Canadians fight in Iraq and Afghanistan with us, so it's not a mistake. The only reason you would think so is if you, ahead of time, are assuming they're specifically talking about American troops, as opposed to the "coalition" troops.

It is a mistake, if you read the ad. They're talking about US Veterans.

Obviously, they couldn't find a picture of one.

Oh, and the complaint about equipment - why would the Republicans have anything to do with the Canadian equipment?

Shows how ignorant you are.

It is a mistake, if you read the ad. They're talking about US Veterans.

Obviously, they couldn't find a picture of one.

Oh, and the complaint about equipment - why would the Republicans have anything to do with the Canadian equipment?

Shows how ignorant you are.

No, they're part of the coalition. When the US decides not to spend money on the troops, they're doing so for the whole of troops in the area. We, along with the governments of the countries they're from, control and regulate their equipment. Hence, we control what equipment we give them. Nowhere in the article does it specifically say "US Troops", but it does say "troops in Afghanistan and Iraq".

The article was about the GOP hurting the troops.
More importantly, the image isn't there to illustrate the article - it's there to illustrate that whole section of the site (http://www.democrats.org/a/communities/veterans_and_military_families/). It's still a bit dumb, but I presume they just took a picture from a stock photo site.

More importantly, the image isn't there to illustrate the article - it's there to illustrate that whole section of the site (http://www.democrats.org/a/communities/veterans_and_military_families/). It's still a bit dumb, but I presume they just took a picture from a stock photo site.

Yup. It still makes sense, regardless of the photo.

Anyone else not surprised that the thing DK notices isn't the article itself or what it says, but the pictures?

Anyone else not surprised that the thing DK notices isn't the article itself or what it says, but the pictures?

Because he posts to slander whomever he doesn't like; he doesn't post to inform.

Because he posts to slander whomever he doesn't like; he doesn't post to inform.

Of course, how could I forget.

Because he posts to slander whomever he doesn't like; he doesn't post to inform.
A straw man argument isn't actually slander.

A straw man argument isn't actually slander.

Not in the literal sense, but he sought to make the site look stupid for something he saw to be a mistake.

The article was about the GOP hurting the troops. Canadians fight in Iraq and Afghanistan with us, so it's not a mistake. The only reason you would think so is if you, ahead of time, are assuming they're specifically talking about American troops, as opposed to the "coalition" troops.Yes it is. Note how they Photoshopped the emblem on the beret?

A straw man argument isn't actually slander.

It is when it isn't a straw man.

Anyone else not surprised that the thing DK notices isn't the article itself or what it says, but the pictures?To be honest, I didn't notice anything about the commercial aired by the Republican Party that had the edited images of the WTC other than the edited images of the WTC.

It is a mistake, if you read the ad. They're talking about US Veterans.

Obviously, they couldn't find a picture of one.

Oh, and the complaint about equipment - why would the Republicans have anything to do with the Canadian equipment?

Shows how ignorant you are.
Too bad the real message is lost on you, especially since you are an ex-vet?

New Poll Shows GOP Broken Promises Hurting Our Troops (http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/10/new_poll_shows_2.php)

Carry on soldier. :rolleyes:

Or, we don't know a Canadian soldier when we see one... LOL

This is the ad:
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/20061007DemocratScreen.jpg

And this is the original soldier. Obviously, a Canadian.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/soldier.jpg

I guess if the Canadian soldier is upset, he's upset about something else.

Oh wait, looks like he's not upset:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/happy.jpg

Gotta love political ads, especially when put together by people who don't know their own soldiers when they see them, and publish them completely out of context.


lol stupid democrtates. Im sure they can't tell they butt from their face:gundge:

lol stupid democrtates. Im sure they can't tell they butt from their face:gundge:

I fear for the future of NS General.


:gundge:

The article was about the GOP hurting the troops. Canadians fight in Iraq and Afghanistan with us, so it's not a mistake. The only reason you would think so is if you, ahead of time, are assuming they're specifically talking about American troops, as opposed to the "coalition" troops.

Only in Afghanistan. Canada isn't involved in the Irak mess, thank Mod.

Gotta be with DK on this one.
If you want to manipulate people with fake info/ 'shopped pictures, at least do it right.
n00bs. ;)

I see DK is still using them red wigglers...

Anyone else not surprised that the thing DK notices isn't the article itself or what it says, but the pictures?

Ever hear the saying, "A picture is like a thousand words." That's a lot more words than the actual words. Just my 2 cents.

I'll sit down now. :D

No, they're part of the coalition. When the US decides not to spend money on the troops, they're doing so for the whole of troops in the area. We, along with the governments of the countries they're from, control and regulate their equipment. Hence, we control what equipment we give them. Nowhere in the article does it specifically say "US Troops", but it does say "troops in Afghanistan and Iraq".

Umm... yeah. I'm from Canada. According to our military press releases, we provide our troops with their own sub-standard equipment.

The only thing we've every received from the U.S. troops is "friendly fire".

the picture is stupid but

they couldnt use a real US soldier could they? that would mean that the soldier endorsed the democratic party and soldiers arent allowed to do that eh?

so there can be no witch hunt to find the soldier who broke the rules, no chance of some poor guy getting punished for it.

its still a stupid picture.

Anyone else not surprised that the thing DK notices isn't the article itself or what it says, but the pictures?

Oh, I don't know.... "New Poll Shows GOP Promises Hurting Our Troops...
Our troops could be taken in this context as American Troops as the GOP is an American party...

Too bad the real message is lost on you, especially since you are an ex-vet?

New Poll Shows GOP Broken Promises Hurting Our Troops (http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/10/new_poll_shows_2.php)

Carry on soldier. :rolleyes:

And if you read the article, I see nothing about Coalition troops... just American Veterans.

I don't even agree with DK most of the time. Looks again like attacking the poster rather than considering what he's presented.

You do realize that an active duty US military personnel can't appear in a political cause in uniform, right? It violates the UCMJ. :p

lol stupid democrtates. Im sure they can't tell they butt from their face:gundge:

There are such things as capital letters (they commonly start sentences and denote proper nouns [such as a political party's name]) standardized spelling (Democrats) and apostrophes in contractions (I'm). There are also possessive pronouns (their) and pluralization of nouns to match number implied in the possessive pronoun (faces).

Interesting tactic, to flamebait all Democrats by calling them stupid and then showing not the least knowledge of simple grammatical construction. I might add that there is real irony in having this post coming from someone styling himself or herself as "Neocon pride."

I salute you.

You do realize that an active duty US military personnel can't appear in a political cause in uniform, right? It violates the UCMJ. :p

Yes LG good point. That is why I am sure the Democrats that put this gem together thought through and chose a Canadian soldier to represent. Still laughing a this one. Makes me want to run out and vote.

The article was about the GOP hurting the troops. Canadians fight in Iraq and Afghanistan with us, so it's not a mistake. The only reason you would think so is if you, ahead of time, are assuming they're specifically talking about American troops, as opposed to the "coalition" troops.

Got to love that Democrat logic. :p

No, they're part of the coalition. When the US decides not to spend money on the troops, they're doing so for the whole of troops in the area. We, along with the governments of the countries they're from, control and regulate their equipment. Hence, we control what equipment we give them. Nowhere in the article does it specifically say "US Troops", but it does say "troops in Afghanistan and Iraq".

You obviously know nothing about the US military or NATO. The US has no control whatever over the equipment used by the military of other countries.

Or, we don't know a Canadian soldier when we see one... LOL

This is the ad:
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/20061007DemocratScreen.jpg

And this is the original soldier. Obviously, a Canadian.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/soldier.jpg

I guess if the Canadian soldier is upset, he's upset about something else.

Oh wait, looks like he's not upset:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/happy.jpg

Gotta love political ads, especially when put together by people who don't know their own soldiers when they see them, and publish them completely out of context.



Subject: Democrat/Repubplican/Texan response to a problem

The answer can be found by answering the following question:


You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a Glock 40 caliber, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.


What do you do?


Democrat's Answer:


Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!

What have I done to provoke this attack?

Could we run away?

What does my wife think?

What does the UN think?

Could I perhaps swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? Does this Glock have appropriate safety built into it?

What kind of message does this gun send to society and to my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?

Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was taking time stabbing me? Should I call 9-1-1?

We need to raise taxes. This is all so confusing!

I need to discuss this with some liberal friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus.


Republican's Answer:


BANG!


Texan's Answer:


BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

Click..... (Reload)

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

Click


Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?"


Son: "Can I shoot the next one!"


Wife: "You ain't taking that to the Taxidermist!"

Umm... yeah. I'm from Canada. According to our military press releases, we provide our troops with their own sub-standard equipment.

The only thing we've every received from the U.S. troops is "friendly fire".


Good one .

Umm... yeah. I'm from Canada. According to our military press releases, we provide our troops with their own sub-standard equipment.

The only thing we've every received from the U.S. troops is "friendly fire".

Friendly Fire. What a world class oxymoron!

"Hey, buddy! How are the wife and kids?" *BLAM!*

Looks like a silly mistake. Of course, Democrats didn't have any trouble finding veterans to run for office, so in a lot of cases, there are plenty of pictures of US veterans in their political ads. How'd the GOP do in that regard, DK? How many vets are serving in Congress or running for office right now as Republicans?

DK, I'd love to see all those pictures cited. How do we know that they weren't photoshopped by you or some Right winger?

I really don't care about the silly picture, TBH. I'm more worried about the article , which talks about how the GOP harms our soldiers.

As if one stupid picture was equivalent in any way, shape, or form. :rolleyes:

lol stupid democrtates. Im sure they can't tell they butt from their face:gundge:

Whose puppet are you? Or are you just a silly troll n00b?

My bet's on the latter, due to the use of the 'gunge' smilie.

Hang on an mo, surely this means that DK is a regular Democrat website visitor. The cat's now out of the bag!

Hang on an mo, surely this means that DK is a regular Democrat website visitor. The cat's now out of the bag!

That, or he found it on a blog somewhere.

Gotta love political ads, especially when put together by people who don't know their own soldiers when they see them, and publish them completely out of context.
Any photograph on this package is simply representational, and may not depict the actual tea farmers or tea farms who supplied this tea.

zOMG I wanna refund!!

And if you read the article, I see nothing about Coalition troops... just American Veterans.

I don't even agree with DK most of the time. Looks again like attacking the poster rather than considering what he's presented.

Or, we don't know a Canadian soldier when we see one... LOL

This is the ad:

And this is the original soldier. Obviously, a Canadian.

I guess if the Canadian soldier is upset, he's upset about something else.

Oh wait, looks like he's not upset:

Gotta love political ads, especially when put together by people who don't know their own soldiers when they see them, and publish them completely out of context.
Attacking the poster? I would call it commenting on what he stated. He was concerned about the picture and not the message of the ad. Perhaps DK is taking the ad "out of context" just because a Canadian soldier is depicted.

I have had many discussions with DK about US forces and his support for the US troops. It is kind of ironic that he would attack this ad, when the basic message is how the GOP has not supported the troops. Kinda like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Perhaps he has no problem using partisan politics to promote his agenda even though the opposing party has raised points of concern that if corrected would help support the troops.

Can't Find a US Soldier For Our Ads...

They are all out raping and pillaging and blowing stuff up when they are not eating baby's .

Had to find a canadian...they dont eat babies as much so they have more time to pose for a photo .

You do realize that an active duty US military personnel can't appear in a political cause in uniform, right? It violates the UCMJ. :p

And it all becomes clear.

And it all becomes clear.

Sometimes I even scare myself. :)

Sometimes I even scare myself. :)

How many pages do you think this debate will continue without acknowledging the obvious?

There are such things as capital letters (they commonly start sentences and denote proper nouns [such as a political party's name]) standardized spelling (Democrats) and apostrophes in contractions (I'm). There are also possessive pronouns (their) and pluralization of nouns to match number implied in the possessive pronoun (faces).
You know, you really should be a teacher. ;)

How many pages do you think this debate will continue without acknowledging the obvious?

This is not the first time I've made a very sharp point in a debate that got ignored completely. I'm sure I'm not the only one, but it seems to happen to me a lot.

I'd say at least ten more. :)

This is not the first time I've made a very sharp point in a debate that got ignored completely. I'm sure I'm not the only one, but it seems to happen to me a lot.

I'd say at least ten more. :)

Maybe you should bold it and add a gun smiley. Throw a couple curses in there for good measure. Add a link to a monkey dancing to a Faith No More song.

Maybe you should bold it and add a gun smiley. Throw a couple curses in there for good measure. Add a link to a monkey dancing to a Faith No More song.

and makeit a gramatecal nightmair :)

This is not the first time I've made a very sharp point in a debate that got ignored completely. I'm sure I'm not the only one, but it seems to happen to me a lot.

I'd say at least ten more. :)

It's just so hard for us to see the point through all the muck. To us, it looks like this:
mudmudmudmudmudmudmudmudmud mudmudmudmudmudmudmudmudmudmudmudmudmudmudmud mudmudmudmudmudmudmudsensiblepointmudmudmudmudmudmud mudmudmudmudmudmudmudmudmudmudmudmudmudmudmudmud mudmudmudmudmudmudmudmudmudmudmudmudmud
Makes it really hard to follow. :(

It's just so hard for us to see the point through all the muck. To us, it looks like this:

Makes it really hard to follow. :(

It's like subliminal messages. You'll understand more once my master plan reaches fruition. :)

It's like subliminal messages. You'll understand more once my master plan reaches fruition. :)
We're being programmed everytime we come on here to do your wishes? :eek:

Well, I suppose it could be worse. A mud Commander-in-Chief is probably better than a Bush one.

Sometimes I even scare myself. :)
There is a light at the end of the tunnel after all. :D

There is a light at the end of the tunnel after all. :D
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Lokomotive.gif w00t w00t! :eek::D:p

They probably just did a google image search for "sad soldier"

Whats the difference between this and editting the picture of Lebanon to include more smoke? Both are wrong and manipulative, and I can't blame the poster for bringing it up.

It is a mistake, if you read the ad. They're talking about US Veterans.

Obviously, they couldn't find a picture of one.

Oh, and the complaint about equipment - why would the Republicans have anything to do with the Canadian equipment?

Shows how ignorant you are.

Unless you can show proof of the full ad, there is no mistake in Szanth's statement. Nowhere on the shown ad does it say anything about them being US troops only.

And about not being able to find a picture with a U.S. soldier. Are you mad? There are millions of pictures of U.S. soldiers. American fighters aren't rare. In fact, they are the most known force in the world. If you can't find a picture of a United States soldier, you aren't looking hard enough.

And its not the Republicans, on there it says Democratic. And from what I've learned, Canada is Democratic.

And its not the Republicans, on there it says Democratic. And from what I've learned, Canada is Democratic.
Canada is not ruled by Democrats or Republicans.

not only did they crop it, but they also edited it. that does show me they were trying to pull something off.

Still no response on my post about how the Dems might have issues with the pictures on their website, but don't have any problems finding veterans to run for office this time around. Wonder why that is? Which do you suppose is more significant--a photo, or veterans wiling to run for office under your party banner?

Still no response on my post about how the Dems might have issues with the pictures on their website, but don't have any problems finding veterans to run for office this time around. Wonder why that is? Which do you suppose is more significant--a photo, or veterans wiling to run for office under your party banner?

very good point, now lets compare which party has more veterans supporting it shall we?

very good point, now lets compare which party has more veterans supporting it shall we?

We'll see after this next election, now won't we?

Anyone else not surprised that the thing DK notices isn't the article itself or what it says, but the pictures?

Actually, I'm posting to inform everyone on how ignorant the Democrats are.

It's pretty obvious they couldn't find a picture of an American soldier willing to be in their ad. Better to grab a stock photo of a Canadian - that way, they won't come around later (like the soldier in a Moore film) and say they didn't want to be used in that way.

Actually, I'm posting to inform everyone on how ignorant the Democrats are.

It's pretty obvious they couldn't find a picture of an American soldier able to be in their ad. Better to grab a stock photo of a Canadian - that way, they won't get some soldier in trouble for violating the military code of conduct.

Fixed. :)

lol stupid democrtates. Im sure they can't tell they butt from their face:gundge:

Wohoo!!! :D
Another Idiot Neocon Troll for my Ignore List!!!

He isn't mad?

Maybe he hids it because he doesn't want the US to bomb to accidentally bomb him.

Hoorah for non-issues!

Hoorah for non-issues!

It's closing in on election time. The fear of loosing the house or the senate, causes one to grab at anything.

LG is right, Active members of any branch the militatry cannot appear in political ads, campagins, commerical or anything that is related to politics. The reason is, that the militatry is an organization made up by the people, supported by the people and is for the people. The militatry has all walks of life, democrats, republicans, etc.

LG is right, Active members of any branch the militatry cannot appear in political ads, campaigns, commerical or anything that is related to politics. The reason is, that the militatry is an organization made up by the people, supported by the people and is for the people. The militatry has all walks of life, democrats, republicans, etc.
The fact that they photoshopped out the guy's beret badge shows that they knew he was a Canuck soldier.
Which just reinforces the idea that they were using a stock photo and delibrately picked one of another country's soldier in order not to get themselves - or the soldier - into trouble.
So, like I said, a total non-issue.

No doubt if they had used a pic of a US soldier, we'd be busy arguing in a DK-generated thread about how the Dems have no right using a US soldier's pic for political gain.

The fact that they photoshopped out the guy's beret badge shows that they knew he was a Canuck soldier.
Which just reinforces the idea that they were using a stock photo and delibrately picked one of another country's soldier in order not to get themselves - or the soldier - into trouble.
So, like I said, a total non-issue.

No doubt if they had used a pic of a US soldier, we'd be busy arguing in a DK-generated thread about how the Dems have no right using a US soldier's pic for political gain.

True, I don't agree with the Democrats policy, or the way they want to run the government, but I'm not going to debate over a stupid picture, I'd much rather debate on the issues, and what really matters.

True, I don't agree with the Democrats policy, or the way they want to run the government, but I'm not going to debate over a stupid picture, I'd much rather debate on the issues, and what really matters.
You want to actually debate issues and policy?
You're in a very tiny minority.

What's wrong with the good ol' American tradition of slagging the opponent on personal/private matters and making thinly veiled, yet legally non-libellous, comments?

You want to actually debate issues and policy?
You're in a very tiny minority.

What's wrong with the good ol' American tradition of slagging the opponent on personal/private matters and making thinly veiled, yet legally non-libellous, comments?
Well, it's alive and well here, ne c'est pas?

And now we learn from Michelle Malkin that the DNC has fixed its Photoshop picture by replacing the Canadian soldier altogether. Who says Democrats can't learn from their mistakes? ^_~

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006076.htm

Still no response on my post about how the Dems might have issues with the pictures on their website, but don't have any problems finding veterans to run for office this time around. Wonder why that is? Which do you suppose is more significant--a photo, or veterans wiling to run for office under your party banner?

Like it's ever hard to find people of any sort willing to run for Congress? o_O

I think I'd be more impressed if the veterans in question were actually candidates in the districts that they actually *live* in. (Here in Illinois one of these Democrats had to be imported from outside the district she's running in because the Democrats of that district apparently couldn't supply any of their own). As it is the fact that none of these veterans are being run in districts where the Democrats are strong shows what the Democrats *really* think of the vets no matter what they may think of the Democrats.

Like it's ever hard to find people of any sort willing to run for Congress? o_O

I think I'd be more impressed if the veterans in question were actually candidates in the districts that they actually *live* in. (Here in Illinois one of these Democrats had to be imported from outside the district she's running in because the Democrats of that district apparently couldn't supply any of their own). As it is the fact that none of these veterans are being run in districts where the Democrats are strong shows what the Democrats *really* think of the vets no matter what they may think of the Democrats.

Let me let you in on a little fact of politics--if you don't run strong candidates in districts where you are supposed to be weak, you don't win the majority. Same thing happens if you don't run any candidates at all in the districts you're expected to lose. And because we learned that strategy--albeit a bit late--we're in a position to make gains no one though remotely possible a year ago as a result. A lot of those veterans are going to win, and a lot of the others are going to scare the fuck out of their challengers to the point where they won't be able to help out their fellow Republicans.

And I've more than had it with the sneering tone Republicans take toward the way they say Democrats feel about the military. We're not the ones who sent them into an ill-planned and poorly executed war without the tools or numbers they needed to succeed. The Republicans did that. We're not the ones saying "we've fucked things up badly, so let's keep fucking them up by not changing our strategy." Republicans have done that. We're not the ones who've given billions to Halliburton and Bechtel but didn't provide 21st century body armor to our troops, leaving them instead with Vietnam era gear. The Republicans did that.

So spare me the bullshit about how much the Republicans love the troops and vice versa. There's a reason the Dems found more than 50 veterans to run as candidates and the Republicans found fewer than 5, and it has nothing to do with importing candidates. Oh, and for the record, the veteran you're talking about? She may have been imported from another part of the state, but she won a very contested primary. The Dems in her district seem to think that she'll do just fine representing them.

I wouldn't say the dude in the picture is "obviously Canadian," but he's obviously not in a US uniform.

No, they're part of the coalition. When the US decides not to spend money on the troops, they're doing so for the whole of troops in the area. We, along with the governments of the countries they're from, control and regulate their equipment.

Each individual government is responsible for their own troops' stuff. The US isn't buying bullets and armor for the British, and vice versa. So that makes that portion of your argument silly.

Nowhere in the article does it specifically say "US Troops",

It says "Our Troops". And that's clearly an American site.

Gotta love political ads, especially when put together by people who don't know their own soldiers when they see them, and publish them completely out of context.

The moral of this story is, even when you intensely dislike something, you had best still try to understand it.

The moral of this story is, even when you intensely dislike something, you had best still try to understand it.

Nope. I'd rather beat it with a stick.

Nope. I'd rather beat it with a stick.

Ok! [ beats you with a stick ] There. Better now? :p

Ok! [ beats you with a stick ] There. Better now? :p

I should have known an old man like you would have a cane handy. :p

I should have known an old man like you would have a cane handy. :p

Actually, it's a katana sword. It's just that out of deference to your lack of age and experience that I didn't remove it from the scabbard. :D

The article was about the GOP hurting the troops. Canadians fight in Iraq and Afghanistan with us, so it's not a mistake. The only reason you would think so is if you, ahead of time, are assuming they're specifically talking about American troops, as opposed to the "coalition" troops.

Listen up to any person who foolishly thinks Canadian troops are present in Iraq, We're not there. Canada was waiting for U.N's blessings (making the war legit) for the Iraq war, but instead, the U.N claimed the Iraq war was illegal. So, Canadian troops are in pursuit of terrorists and the Taliban in Afghanistan (while American troops over there are being reduced in size.). Taliban are resurging in Afghanistan (taking advantage of NATO's weaknesses-troop numbers), sectarian and tribal warfare are emerging in Iraq (all kinds of squads/militia are roaming all over Iraq with different motives and agendas). So much mess in Bush's hands, but at least he keeps America safe :D -sure that worked on the 2004 presidential elections :confused: .