JUST LIKE I THOUGHT, MUCH LIKE THE COWARDS THAT WANT TO BE PRESIDENT BUT CANN0T FACE FOX NEWS, LET ALONE FIGHT A WAR ON TERROR, NOT A SINGLE DEMOCRAT HAS A WORD TO SAY ABOUT THEIR TREASURED CANDIDATES! cowards vote for other cowards should be the banner over the democratic convention when they nominate their choice for president!!!

Is it now a requirement to debate on Fox News to be an effective Preisdent? I don't think any candidate is afraid to debate on Fox, they just don't want to and that's their perogative. Should they be bullied into participating to coddle the Republicans who won't even be voting in their primary? That really wouldn't make any sense. This is old news anyway. Edwards pulled out in March. There have been plenty of debates and there will be plenty more. Fox news isn't fair and balanced. If I were a candidate, I don't know that I would participate either. Also the CEO of Fox compared Obama to Osama Bin Laden which didn't go over well in Dem. circles.

Sort of like "child predators vote for child predators" should be the banner over the republican convention?

Oh wait, republicans aren't child predators as a general rule, just as democrats aren't cowards as a general rule.

Run away from what?

Punctuation?

Hmmm...who specifically said they wanted to wait to pull troops out until election time?

Could two months from now be.....(cue scary music)....September!!!! And why is that date so significant? I am glad that you asked.

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. general in Iraq and the man behind the current "surge" strategy, is to deliver a report to Congress on Sept. 15. So the Democrats have agreed to wait until after the report, gauge the degree of success by that date, which is a little more than six months after the troop level was raised and then make a decision.

The sequence of events was as follows:

December 6th, 2006, the Iraq Study group presented its report, highly critical of the strategy in Iraq.
December 11th, President Bush meets with his advisers.
January 10th, President Bush speaks to the nation....but before his speech additional troops are already en route.

From the outset, Democrats (and some Republicans) have insisted on metrics, milestones. That is not uncommon. In school or at a job or pretty much anywhere, you have to report on success or failure. People get report cards, evaluations, etc. In war, we refer to the measure of relative gains or losses as "Winning" or "Losing." It is really not unusual for Congress to ask the General in charge of a war effort if we are winning or losing that war.

"they want to wait and postpone until election time." You DO know that the election isn't until November 2008? Please tell me that you know that...PLEASE. So talking about reducing troop levels based on the report of the General in charge of commanding those troops is perfectly reasonable and has nothing to do with the election.

You understand that what you have said makes absolutely no sense and shows an appalling lack of knowledge of current events, right?

"all i see when i am watching cspan during commercials" Maybe you need to watch the WHOLE program instead of 30 second clips.

I see you're getting the same responses as I am on my article. None really related to answering the question.

They don't have to. Maybe they should only have Republican debates on Fox News. I wouldn't care or fuss about it.

If the "liberal" media is so powerful then why have we had a Republican in the White House and a Republican majority in Congress for so long? I know Republicans no longer have the majority in congress but unless the Dem's have enough votes to override the veto, it's hard to get anything accomplished.

I can however give you an answer and I'm not even a Democrat.



Simple, considering Bush has been called everything from Cowboy to Hitler, courage is something Democrats have to avoid so as to not have something in common with Bush and his way of managing the country. Right now courage is considered, by Democrats, as a no-no character when trying to gain support of the American people. Having something in common with Bush to them is like eating in the same restaurant Osama use to eat at. A big no-no.



That's because fighting wars is not cool and makes us unpopular. Remember, we have to look good in the eyes of the rest of the world because their opinion..., matters I guess. We wouldn't want China to raise the prices on their products or sell us bad products just because we not cool anymore. Remember, politics is about who's better, who has more and who can make more.

I find it sad to think that just because Bush has a veto power that the Democrats will just give up and not even bother to fight. Why all the celebration when the Democrats won Congress and sorta have the Senate when they knew they couldn't beat Bush anyways. Democrats lied when they said if we win we'll take Bush down.

Who has been telling you this, and why did you believe them? For starters, elections are typically held in November -- which is two months from September. Also, Senators are elected to six year terms --and 1/3 are up for re-election every two years. Since elections were held in 2006, the next Senate election is 2008. So, no -- September is not 1 month away from the November 2008 election.

I never said that they were giving up. They have passed legislation such as increase in minimum wage. They passed legislation for government funding of fetal stem cell research that Bush vetoed. They are trying to pass a law that would give health coverage to poor kids that Bush has threatened to veto. They tried and failed to pass immigration reform with Bush's support. They are trying to pass a farm bill that Bush has threatened to veto.



Oh yes, all those Democratic candidates are just shaking in their boots, quivering in fear at the thought of having to face Bill O'Reilly's superior intellectual skills. LMAO