He calls the Republicans who oppose "Plus Up" "anti-troops." Here's what passes for the argument:
They are (understandably) unhappy with how Bush has prosecuted the war over the last couple of years, under the guidance of Rumsfeld, Abizaid, and Casey. So they now are supporting a resolution that precisely embodies the Rumsfeld-Abizaid-Casey approach: no new strategy, no more troops, and continuing pressure to turn things over to the Iraqis as quickly as possible. These senators dislike the status quo in Iraq - and are supporting a resolution that condemns Bush's attempt to change the status quo.
But the timing of all this matters, surely. It may be the senators' principled, good faith judgment that Iraq is now, thanks to Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Casey, in a spiraling civil war - a war that U.S. soldiers have no business being drgged into and that they can do almost nothing to stop. A day after the most horrifying massacre yet in Baghdad, the senators don't seem so nuts, do they? Adding a pathetic number of troops to do Maliki's job in those parts of Baghdad not controlled by the Mahdi Army is not a status-quo changer, whatever Bill Kristol's fantasies. And saying so is not "anti-troops". It's just calling it like it is.