I was just watching our pal Barbara Comstock debate a Democrat strategist named Rich Masters, who was explaining (not very convincingly) why the anti-war braying and the Lieberman loss do not show that the Dems are soft on terror. He said their anti-war position was limited to Iraq, which the administration has mishandled because the initiative has been “undermanned and underfunded.”

So lemme get this straight: Does that mean if we committed more troops and more billions to Iraq, Democrats would support it?