(Here's what Senator Clinton asked General Petreaus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Read it and see if an apology is necessary. Mitt, she's on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Isn't she merely doing her job? She points out that they are trying to implement the President's policy. She says that "you, and certainly the very capable people working with both of you, were dealt a very hard hand." She's hardly disrespectful. Where'd she attack his integrity Mitt? Google "Clinton Petraeus willing suspension disbelief" and you'll see much of the right's message machine at work on this theme but again where's the beef? And what's this about "we now know beyond any reasonable doubt" as to "The Surge"? On the issue of civilian Iraqi death each got one Pinocchio from the WaPo. As to the statistics, it depends on the measurement. Even within the White House there's been fussing about how to proceed. And let us not forget the 2004 Wa-Po op-ed General Petreaus penned on the eve of the election.)
"In the wake of 9/11, the President took unprecedented (illegal in some case!) steps to keep us safe and defend Americans at home and abroad. We revamped our homeland security apparatus (Don't forget Dubyah resisted creating DHS for a good while), passed new laws that allowed us to listen in when al-Qaeda (and then ignored FISA at other times to just listen. And then lied about it. Repeatedly!) was calling, cleared out terrorist training camps in Afghanistan (Mitt, they were hardly cleared out!) and successfully (How much success can we and they stand Mitt?) toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein."
"our soldiers ... have overcome early strategic mistakes to make progress in Iraq ... This progress has come as America's heroes and their families have made unequalled sacrifices. They have done this in the face of extended and repeated tours with aging equipment as a result of military troop levels and funding that were cut far too deeply in the 1990s." (Mitt and the Townhall crowd surely recall that from 1994 forward Congress was controlled by the GOP. We know that Rumsfeld and other neo-cons contolling Bu$hCo ignored and actually ridiculed those that warned we'd need more boots on the ground in Iraq to do the job. Rummy was going to transform the military Mitt. Was he asking for more folks?)
Finally, don't you just love Townhall.com for an example of the right's coordination and content? With money from Joseph Coors and then the various Scaife foundations plus others, The Heritage Foundation was born. They supposed built Townhall.com for about a million bucks. Although they've sorta kinda cut Townhall.com loose now (This helps with the 5019c)(3) issues perhaps?) we'll see if they ever turn a profit. Free enterprise can be a real bitch can't it? I also love how on Tonhall.com you can get both anti-Hillary shirts and a book by Charles Koch on success. That the Koch family radicals have funded their own own gaggle of right wing organizations is just too rich.
Heck of job George says Mitt. Hugh Hewitt, via Townhall says The Smart Money Is On Mitt, so perhaps your strategy will work. Not sure the American public will buy it yet those that regularly visit Townhall.com at this point probably don't add up to too many votes come November of 2008. I'm sure you and yours will have time to hone the message even more by then and indeed I know the right's machinery is impressive. Still, I'm thinking plenty of Americans are realizing we've had about all the conservatism we can stand Mitt. Peace ... or War!