This is what they think of supporting the troops.

The following day, a prominent liberal thinker in Washington told me he was concerned that Democratic leaders and antiwar activists are swinging behind Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Jack Murtha's plan to attach restrictions to Iraq war funding. Murtha's proposal would prohibit money from being used to deploy troops to Iraq who are not fully equipped, fully trained and fully rested. That plan cannot win a majority, this thinker said; putting it up to a vote would only rip apart the party. The Democrats, consequently, would look weak and not achieve anything, but they still would give the Republicans the chance to accuse them of undermining the soldiers in the field. Couldn't antiwar Democrats and activists, this liberal asked, find a more mature and sophisticated strategy?

Here's Congressman Jim Moran.

To think that Mr. Murtha would take an action that is not in the best interests of our troops is lunacy. No one in the Congress has spent more years in combat nor more time listening to the young men and women and their families who serve our country than Jack Murtha. Just as Mr. Murtha forced Congress and the President to spend money on protective body armor and up-armored Humvees, Jack is now the first American leader to propose a true plan that "supports our troops" in a more genuine way than simply cheering them on into battle.

More of this from Democrats, please.  And less of the 'liberal thinker' types who call the antiwar public children.  They are undercutting the serious Democrats - Jim Moran, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, and Jack Murtha - who are actually interested in protecting and funding our troops.

Oh, and Senator Carl Levin, stop implying that the military ought to go into Syria and Iran to prevent weapons flows into Iraq.  It's not a smart idea to argue that Bush needs the authority to invade more countries since no matter the merits, he will not use that authority wisely.