Half full or half empty?

It's amazing how liberal bloggers can see the same glass so differently. Here's Steve Soto on the Lugar/Voinovich pullback from Bush's war in Iraq:

I know that many of you will never agree with my suggestion that the Democrats can wind down the occupation if they make it easier for GOP senators to approve a mission change from occupation to counter-terrorism, rather than a complete withdrawal in Iraq. But please note that if you build it, they will come.

Now Voinovich follows Lugar’s lead. How many other GOP senators will now not want to be left behind?

And here's Big Tent Democrat at TalkLeft on the same topic:

It is tempting for those of us who wish for an end to the US's Iraq Debacle to make much of statements like this:

Ohio Senator George Voinovich says the US should begin pulling troops out of Iraq and make greater use of diplomacy. . . . His remarks come on the heels of similar comments yesterday from Indiana Senator Richard Lugar. The two say they're still not ready to insist on a timetable for withdrawal. But both are making it clear their patience is gone.

The temptation must be resisted. What this position stakes out is the view that it is acceptable to SAY you oppose President Bush's Iraq policy without actually doing anything about it. Forget for a moment the policy fact that saying you oppose the President's policy and then voting to fund it will effect no change in policy. Consider the crass politics of the situation. If the Lugar/Voinovich/Smith/Hagel position is treated as politically acceptable, even admirable, Democrats will be creating a political safe harbor for Republicans to avoid having to run on supporting Bush's Iraq Debacle. More.

I'm afraid I side with Big Tent Democrat. The glass is not only half empty, it's completely empty. These guys may talk alot about how they disagree with the war, but when it comes down to actually doing something about it, they will never side with the Democrats. They'll side with Bush.