When the GOP slate of candidates threatened to not participate in the next YouTube debate, I, and many other Republicans rightfully pilloried them. Their rationale was that it was not "presidential" responding to a talking snow man or some other such nonsense.

Now it's the Dems turn to be vilified, and for more important reasons. Fox News has officially canceled their scheduled Democratic debate in September in Detroit. The reason? Democrats will not participate and be subjected to questioning by the evil, right-wing channel. They don't want to face real questions that matter about the War on Terror, their past experience and stands on issues and domestic policy issues such as abortion. They know full-well that they will be interrogated by good newsmen such as Brit Hume, Chris Wallace and others and will not get the softball questions tossed underhand to them by liberal shill Keith Olbermann.

Where's the outcry over this? To Democrats, it is a good thing not having their candidates answer straight-forward questions from the other side of the political spectrum. Hell, the GOP candidates have withstood stupid questions from liberals in interviews such as "did you sleep with your wife before marriage?" I would venture that Brit Hume would not ask so shallow and insulting a question as that.

Too bad for the Democrats, as whoever gets the nomination will eventually have to answer questions from those who don't support them. It would be much better to get the answers out now and have them in the past then have to answer them when more people are paying attention. They have no issues with attending a forum hosted by gay and lesbian groups or a minority debate, but no way will they participate in a debate on the number one cable news channel. That makes sense.

On this very blog I've taken Fox News to task for its overwhelmingly conservative bias and shoddy reporting practices. But tonight, I must stop and give full praise to the network and its big three moderators. Brit Hume, Chris Wallace and Wendell Goler did what MSNBC's Chris Matthews could not. They played hardball, asking tough questions and inciting the candidates to spar with one another. It made for, dare I say it, exciting viewing.

Especially memorable was the exchange between Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul on the reasons that al-Qaida and terrorists in general attack Americans. It was clearly Rudy's best moment in an otherwise awkward balancing act.

But back to the moderators. Perhaps what it really took tonight were conservative commentators to ferret out the crucial distinctions between the GOP candidates. The Fox guys did good on this score, and, as a result, tomorrow's headline will not be about the media, or a bunch of guys who all sounded the same.

I agree with fellow "Stump" blogger David Knowles that Fox did an excellent job of moderating last night's debate. The panel asked tough questions and forced the candidates to give relevant, perhaps uncomfortable answers. Now you know why the Democrat's will not debate on Fox, they are not ready to answer a question from Brit Hume.

%Gallery-3159%

As David noted, the exchange between Rep. Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani was the highlight. Rudy took it and ran with it and his statements were pure red meat to Republican viewers. Conservatives may have issues with Rudy on social issues but alot of those feelings may well have been assuaged by his comments last night. Video of the exchange and the subsequent interview with Sean Hanity is here.

Other winners: After Rudy, everyone else just seemed secondary. Sen. John McCain did nothing to hurt himself and that may have been the point. Another winner would be Fred Thompson. These debates will weed out the long shots and eventually lead to a debate with F. Thompson, Romney, Giuliani and McCain in which the substantive issues brought up tonight will be debated more thoroughly.

Losers: Paul is of course the standout loser of the night. His parroting of the Michael Moore line of "root cause" and such just will not resonate with Republican primary voters. Others who are considered losers by not making a huge impact are Tommy Thompson, Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter. They can't seem to get any traction during these debates and their personalities aren't conducive to the debate arena.

It should be interesting to see what type of bump in the polls Rudy gets.

Update: NRO has a comparison of MSNBC's questions versus Fox's. Fox stands high above the Chris Matthews/Politico inanity.

It would seem that the Democrats will be launching a series of "pre-emptive" strikes prior to General David Petraeus' report on the progress of the Iraq war. The International Herald Tribune has pointed out that a number of top Democratic leaders such as Sen. Edward Kennedy and Sen. Joe Biden have reached out to the media to dispute the report.

Such a strategy looks like it will backfire on the Democrats considering that a recent CBSNYT's poll shows that the public holds its faith in the military command and neither congress nor the president in terms of who knows how to run the war. Attacking Petraeus could prove disastrous for the Democrats and should be avoided at all costs. If the Democrats start to push a hard anti-military attitude, they will be in DEEP trouble with the public which can accept anti-war, but NOT anti-military posturing.

Will Petraeus become the modern day version of Gen. MacArthur or Gen. Eisenhower? Perhaps. He will be appearing in an exclusive interview with Brit Hume on Fox News right after his report to congress in what is about as hard of a slap in the face to the mainstream media and the left wing establishment as he could muster. If Petraeus' comes off a media darling after his interview, the war will take a unique dynamic as the public will have a new hero to rally behind.

Illinois Democrat Senator Barack Obama has taken the advice of the media and announced the formation of his presidential exploratory committee, with a final decision on a run to be made by February 10th, 2007. From what I've read, I like the guy, but I think he's better (and capable of more) than just spouting out Democratic Party mantras on Bush and the Iraq War. And positions like this (via NRO from Brit Hume's program last night) seem infantile:

FRED BARNES: I'm reading Barack Obama, he says, "We need to start pursuing a more complete plan to constrain the president." Barack Obama says that, this senator from Illinois. Now, he doesn't have a plan to win the war in Iraq, he doesn't have a plan to secure Baghdad, he doesn't have a plan to help reconstruct the rest of Iraq that needs to be reconstructed, he doesn't plan to get the Iranians to stop sending people - troublemakers, revolutionary guards, into Iraq. He doesn't have any of those plans. What he wants is a more concrete plan to constrain the president. This man does not know who the enemy is.

Can't just be against everything, the way the Democrats are now. I guess you have to take this position if you want to be taken as a serious Democrat presidential aspirant, but it's still wrong. With an issue as big as Iraq, you have to have solutions, and answers to the consequences of your solutions. Not just hate and obstruction. Also, read the Constitution. You can try to stop funding for the war, but little else, as this op-ed in this morning's Washington Post, What Congress Can (And Can't) Do on Iraq, explains.

It's nearly official, the Nevada Democratic party has pulled support for the Fox News presidential debate. The far-left needed a victory in something -- anything -- so they made this their latest mission: attacking Fox News and the candidates who didn't back out. Forget that Fox News is the most watched cable news station and that the moderator would most-likely have been Brit Hume, Juan Williams and/or Chris Wallace who are all professionals.

That said, I got to thinking what exactly the liberals envisioned as an acceptable debate and channel to show it on. I've figured that it would have to be on MSNBC and the moderators would have to be Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Katie Couric (I know she's CBS, but why quibble?) It would go something like this:

I'm Chris Matthews and welcome to the Democratic debate in Berkeley, CA. Tonight we have Senators Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and a bunch of other people who don't matter. Our first question will be asked by Keith Olbermann.

KO: Senator Obama, we all know that the Republicans are racist hate-mongers and fascists. With that said, do you think the uneducated people in flyover states like Ohio, Arkansas and New Mexico will vote for a black man or do you think they are entirely too racist to consider it?

Obama: Er, uh, Keith...I don't, uh, that's a loaded question.

KO: I agree, the racist filth who inhabit the Rethuglican party and red states won't.

You may recall that the Democrats wimped out when asked to appear on Fox News for a debate, the questions posed to them from Brit Hume and Chris Wallace would have been too tough I guess. I for one think it hurts their chances to connect with the electorate as Fox is the most-widely viewed cable news channel and the the number one source for news on TV.

The GOP debate the other night has the highest viewership of any debate thus far:

The Republican debate on FNC last night was the highest rated debate so far this election cycle. The debate scored 3.14 million total viewers. That beats the nine other presidential debates.

There could be several reasons for that: Republicans are more into the race on their side and watch the debates to learn more about the candidates, the Dems have ceded the race to Hillary and nothing will change that so what's the point in watching or people are starting to pay more attention as the summer has passed. I imagine it;s a mix of all three.

Whatever the reason, the Dems are shorting themselves as you have many disaffected Republicans who may consider voting for a Democrat this go around. Most Republicans watch Fox and would have had a chance to tune in and see the array of candidates. For instance, Barack Obama is an intriguing candidate that many Republicans know of but haven't seen him in the debate setting, one in which he handles well. That won't happen now thanks to the Dem establishment that has demonized Fox, a channel which airs all views, not just liberal ones.

We've spent plenty of time turning a critical eye on the way the United States has treated the terrorists and how Arab insurgents who have no respect for civil rights or for life itself. Today, the captured British soldiers spoke about their captivity. As expected, it was bad.

The Brits were blindfolded, interrogated and threatened with seven years in prison if they did not confess. Part of the torture included psychological mind games. Faye Turney, the lone woman captive, was secluded away from the others.

When blindfolded, they were lined up against a wall and they could hear guns being cocked. This was all part of the torture.

Iran is run by a ruthless dictator and his treatment of prisoners is inhumane.

The Iranian capture of British sailors in Iraqi territorial waters could just be a matter of the Iranians needing a few bargaining chips, Richard Miniter tells us in a new piece up at Pajamas Media. They don't need bargaining chips for their nuclear program - they're just going to continue to do what they want to, irregardless of any sanctions or scolding. No, these bargaining chips are connected to something far more sinister.

American forces in Iraq now hold some 300 prisoners tied to Iran's intelligence agencies, Pajamas Media learned from both diplomatic and military sources. This is believed, by both sources, to be a record number of prisoners tied to Iran. Virtually all were captured in the past two months.

We've been in a war with Iran since they took American hostages in Tehran in 1979. We've been in a shooting war with them since the Iranian proxy Hezbollah bombed the Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983, killing 241 servicemen. (For those who continue to try to claim that it was the Lebanese Hezbollah responsible for that bombing, rather than Iran - Iran founded and financed the whole movement, and even the US courts have determined that Iran was responsible, as this story at CNN.com informs us.)

The events in London today should be cause for alarm for us in America as well:

Police have confirmed that not one, but two massive car bombs were set to explode in the heart of London's West End.

The first car, in Haymarket, was a metallic green Mercedes packed with petrol, gas cannisters and nails, and was defused after police were alerted by an ambulance crew called to an incident at a nearby nightclub in the early hours of Friday morning.

The second bomb was in a car that was illegally parked nearby and towed to the Park Lane car pound.

These bombs were intended not to hit infrastructure but to be pure terror weapons. They were set in highly congested areas and were built for maximum casualties. Fortunately the police and security services defused them.

In the U.S., we don't take security as seriously as the Brits. The Fort Dix Six were planning to attack out military and it didn't even rate an entire news cycle. Some even scoffed that it was a bunch of idiots who could never have pulled it off. I thought such inane thoughts would cease when 19 Muslims did the unthinkable and crashed four planes using only boxcutters, but I digress.

We've come a long way since 9/11, our security apparatus, including Homeland Security, the FBI and local police have been trained to spot and take down terror operations. We've been very effective as we have not been hit since 9/11 and that has had the effect of making us complacent.

Sanity would dictate that Iran would keep a low profile with coalition forces on two of their borders. Of course, we're talking about Islamic Republic and the words "sanity" and "Iran" are rarely used in the same sentence.

Yesterday, Iranian forces took fifteen British sailors and Marines hostage in what they said were Iranian waters. Britain has disputed that. Iran say the Brits admitted that they had violated Iranian waters. Under how much duress is in question. The troops have now been taken to Tehran.

The big question is why would Iranian leadership allow this to escalate? Ahmadinejad has made very clear his intent to expand Iranian influence throughout the Gulf, but is this a smart way to accomplish that? The Brits will not negotiate with the Iranians, thus this may well run on for some time. Israel, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are all adamant about the Iranian nuke program being contained and suspended with the former nations just searching for a reason to take out the nuclear facilities with military strikes.

Ahmadinejad is scheduled to address the UN, a plan that now seems to be on hold because of diplomatic haggling. This is not going to gain him any sympathy from any nation outside the Middle East. Any support he does have from nations such as Russia and France seems to be drying up.

This situation bears watching as the Brits have a sizable force in Basra near Iran's southern border and the support of American air power. If Tony Blair decodes to play hard ball, the whole region could ignite.

Three students at the esteemed and elitist Yale were arrested for burning the American flag:

BOSTON (Reuters) - Three Yale University students, including a Briton and a Greek national, have been charged in a case involving the burning of a U.S. flag outside a Connecticut house, a court official said on Wednesday.

...Anklesaria is British and Angelopoulos is Greek. Both are freshmen. Akbar, a senior, was born in Pakistan but is a U.S. citizen, according to police and court documents. Anklesaria and Angelopoulos turned over their passports.

The Brit and the Greek should probably read a little history and learn why they should love America. It was only sixty-some years ago that the Nazis threatened the former and occupied the latter. It was America's entry into WWII and the sacrifices of our servicemen that freed them from near certain decades of Nazism. You figure if they were accepted at Yale they would have some semblance of intelligence. Goes to show that you can send 'em to school and still they may not learn a damn thing.

The papers in the UK are going nuts over the revelation that Diana was not only under U.S. electronic surveillance the night she died, but also bugged prior. Speculation is that she was to visit the U.S. and stay with the very rich Republican Teddy Forstmann.

Mickey Kaus has dug up a 2006 piece in the New York Daily News in which it was revealed that Diana wanted to marry a U.S. politician and live in the White House. Imagine, Diana, a woman who captivated Americans nearly as much as the Brits, marrying a Republican who was said to be planning a run against Hillary in 2000 for Senate. He would have been an instant front-runner for the presidency.

Kaus asks the right question:

What was the grave high-level concern about Forstmann, a big-deal investor, Republican, and education activist? ... What, were they worried Diana might endorse school choice?*** ... And did they have a warrant? ... Plus, of course: What did the Clintons know, etc.?...

More importantly, why did Clinton choose to allow surveillance on Diana who we knew was not a threat yet failed to approve the proper surveillance on bin Laden who had shown that he was. At the time Diana died, al-Qaida had already made their intentions known and indeed were planning the attacks on the American embassies in Dar-es-Salaam and Nairobi.

Also, as AJ Strata alludes to: how will the Democrats explain that it was allowable to spy on Diana and not al-Qaida and Osam bin Laden? What about FISA? The NSA is kinda, sorta working on a denial.

With the high profile aspects of this case and the dogged nature of the British press, this one can not be swept under the carpet by the NY Times and WaPo.

According to an ABC News exclusive at the Blotter, it would be "a miracle" if they were not:

"It is not a matter of if there will be an attack, but how bad the attack will be," an intelligence official told ABCNews.com.

Authorities say they are seeking at least 18 suspected suicide bombers.

This is an unprecedented warning that would not have been released unless the Brit authorities had hard intel. With the death of an innocent man after the 7/7 bombings, one would expect that the British security forces may not be so quick to respond should they suspect an event of taking place. Here's hoping that they can deter any attack and arrest those responsible.

France is also worried about being attacked as Ayman al-Zawahiri supposedly called them out in his latest video tape dispatch. When will nations such as France realize that they can appease and apease, but eventually you have to face the enemy and that enemy seems to be coming right at you.

No word on any reports of threats (outside the one from Zawahiri) in the U.S.

In related news, this can't exactly be comforting to the UK authorities:

A British soldier has been charged with passing secret information linked to the military campaign in Afghanistan to Iran, The Times has learnt. Corporal Daniel James, 44, appeared at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court in London yesterday, charged under Section 1 of the Official Secrets Act with communicating information "useful to the enemy".

Much more here.

You can't trust anything that liberal press says. Why I bother to read it, I will never know. Here I am reading that people and buildings are getting blown up in Iraq and conditions are terrible. Some have even implied that things are worse now than they were when Saddam was in charge. Well, disregard all those negative writings. Dick Cheney said the fact that Britain and Denmark are reducing their troops levels is proof that things are going well in Iraq. Thank God for Dick Cheney. He is the Republican Prozac. Dick said: "Well, I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well."

Danish Primer Minister Dick Rasmussen announced that he is pulling out his 460 troops. Did anybody know they were there? Oh, he's leaving nine guys behind. Wonder what they did to warrant that treatment. Rasmussen said he consulted with the Iraqi government and they said they would handle things from here. Guess his decision had nothing to do with the fact that 64% of Danes opposed Denmark's involvement in the conflict.

Tony Blair, the silver tongued prime minister, also said that he was withdrawing his troops. The downsizing will be gradual and will not be completed until 2008. (Tony will be gone before his troops are.) The Brits aren't too happy about the Iraq war either. However, that is not why Tony is leaving. He stated that Basra is still a dangerous place. (Is that an understatement?). The master orator went on to say, the next chapter will be written by the Iraqis. Based on the British polls, I bet Tony wishes that he did not co author the earlier chapters. The best comment, was that it was important to show Iraq that the multinational forces weren't going to stay around forever. Nice!

If Dick Cheney says things are going well in Iraq, then things must be going well in Iraq.