The media, or at least part of the media, is all atwitter over the so-called GOP YouTube debate hosted Wednesday night by the Communist News Network, or in this case, the Clinton News Network, as columnist Michelle Malkin and other bloggers reveal that many of the "independent" questioners in the audience were actually Democratic plants.

First and foremost, what did the Republican candidates expect? CNN has been anti-American for decades, airing fake stories on the Vietnam War, putting itself above the safety of American troops in the Gulf War, and serving as the official public relations network for the Democratic Party and worldwide terrorism.

Why did the GOP suddenly think anything at all was going to be different? CNN does not air "debates" to inform the American public on candidates' positions, it puts them on the spot with the hopes of making them look bad so people will vote Democratic.

I have found over the years that these debates are the most ballyhooed and yet one of the least effective methods of getting the message out to the public. After three debates between Bush and Kerry, did anyone in America change their vote? I think not, and the polls said the same thing.

On a regional level, back in 2003 when I was the strategist for a slate of Republicans running for municipal office I recommended against participating in a debate that had been arranged by people who behind the scenes were pulling for the opposition. I ran into a ton of opposition from people who were spouting all the "what ifs," and thought the GOP should participate. But I held my ground and the GOP did not attend.

We won by a landslide! The "debate" still was staged by some of the Democratic candidates, but hardly anyone attended who wasn't involved in the campaign in some way, and even running it repeatedly on cable television had zero impact.

These are hardly debates in the first place, as opposed to very tightly staged commercials, and people generally have their minds made up where they stand on the issues anyway. We are left at the mercy of the media, which is hardly objective or independent, to tell us who did well, and that usually is the person with the best quip or sound bite.

So when you have that kind of format in the first place, and it is run by CNN in the second place, what do you really expect other than subterfuge and manipulation?

I have had my own experience with CNN's aversion to the truth and it falls right in line with what occurred this week.

Just before Memorial Day 2006 I was scheduled to do a taped interview on my book, Masters of the Art, A Fighting Marine's Memoir of Vietnam, with CNN reporter Gary Baumgarten. It was supposed to air several times over the weekend as part of CNN's Memorial Day coverage.

I was a bit wary of the interview, given CNN's history and reputation, but when you are trying to get the word out about a book that tells the truth on Vietnam and how it relates to the propaganda the media spreads on the War on Terror, you take your publicity where you get it. I know my subject and wasn't concerned about the type of questions he might ask, so long as my answers weren't chopped up or misrepresented.

So Baumgarten calls me, and in the first minute of questioning starts going off on the troops in Iraq and how they are more likely to be war criminals than the Vietnam generation, since the military now is all volunteer and back in Vietnam most were "conscripts," his words not mine. The implication was that today's troops are volunteering to be murderers, while in Vietnam the troops were forced to be murderers.

Before I even got to the baby-killer and murderer garbage, I corrected him on the Vietnam generation, and noted that in Vietnam nearly 70 percent of those of us who fought were volunteers, and only 30 percent were "draftees."

I pointed out that this was a mirror image of World War II, The Big One, where only 30 percent volunteered and 70 percent were drafted.

His next words were "have a nice weekend," followed by the 'click' of the phone being hung up. End of interview. Not a word of what I said ever aired. So much for CNN and the truth.

Which brings me back to the original question. Why did the GOP candidates expect anything different, unless their plan was to get the media attention they knew they'd receive from whatever chicanery came up during the evening?

I'm laughing about newscasters tiptoeing around whether Mrs. Clinton actually knew that her people were going to infiltrate the debate, including by the way, a retired Army general who says he was a closet homosexual in the military and now is on Clinton's gay and lesbian task military task force.

Does anyone really believe Hillary Clinton doesn't have an iron grip on every minuscule facet of her campaign? Does anyone really believe she didn't know exactly what was going on and approved of it? Or any of the other Democratic candidates whose supporters were featured asking questions Wednesday night for that matter?

Michelle Malkin made the point in an interview with Glenn Beck that 5000 UTube questions were submitted to CNN and only 32 selected for the debate. What are the chances given those numbers that having Democratic plants ask the questions was sheer coincidence?

Maybe there is no direct evidence or 'smoking gun' but this is America and you can get a conviction in a court of law before a jury of your peers if there is sufficient circumstantial evidence.

I guess this makes for interesting television news, which is far more on the lines of entertainment than a source of information, but I don't think the majority of American voters are the least bit fooled, the least bit surprised, or for that matter, care in the least either.

I believe that most Americans are the type of people that the Move America Forward caravan met in Bagdad, Arizona, Thursday on their cross country tour to support the troops. The town, and yes it is spelled differently than Baghdad, Iraq, is small, and not exactly a major transportation hub.

But the MAF caravan stopped there and contrary to expectations, their bus, which is really nice by the way, was mobbed by people, young and old, who wanted to talk a bit, and fill out greeting cards for the troops. The photos that MAF has on its website tell quite a story, and it is different than the one you'll see or hear on CNN or any of the network news outlets.

People who are obviously so pro-America, and pro-troops, are all around us, just as in Bagdad, AZ, but you never see them in the news. I find them when I speak in public, I find them in the communications classes I teach at the University of Hartford, and Move America Forward found them in Bagdad, Arizona.

I believe America is alive, well and thriving, despite the constant drumming of anti-American rhetoric on CNN and network outlets. Our troops are doing magnificently in Iraq, and Afghanistan, just as we did in Vietnam.

Try finding a report of a defeat involving American troops in either the War on Terror or the Vietnam War. You won't. We haven't lost a major battle in either place. That is the real similarity between today's military and my generation.

Today's troops are carrying on the traditions we handed over to them, and they are winning the War on Terror.

But unlike the Vietnam generation, we now have an active, knowledgeable, fearless and engaged populace backing the troops. Represented by organizations like Move America Forward, they bring the truth to Bagdad, Arizona, and communities across the country.

They are adamant that in this war, the media and politicians won't sell out the troops or our allies as they did during Vietnam.

That is the message, that is the truth, and that is one report you will never find on a GOP debate on CNN.