[mburbank]

I have a few problems with that article, Kev.

First, while I fully agree that Darfur is deserving of inflamed passions, and that you can't really get tyo hyperbole in this situation, all his verve is in the service of rage at other people. I haven't noticed neo cons, or whatever this guy is, forming a "Lincoln Brigade" either. It's all very well to rage at the 'left' for their lack of action. Where's his? I don't see him making the argument that it's okay we are doing nothing in Darfur, because we are doing stuff elsewhere.

"Oh, yes: Those on the left demanding that we "bring the troops home" from Iraq would be delighted to send American troops to rescue Khartoum's victims. But our military is occupied with other cases of fanaticism and genocide in the Muslim world this holiday season.

Isn't it curious that, when it comes to liberation, Iraq didn't count? For the endlessly hypocritical left, there's one magic difference between the half-million dead of Darfur and the 1.5 million people killed by Saddam in his internal massacres and neighborhood wars: Bush. "

Then there's that. He accuses the 'left' of both not wanting to do anything about Darfur AND wanting to do something about it, but in a way he wouldn't approve of. I think that if we went to Darfur and liberated them from their current situation and transitioned them into one like Iraq's right now, it 'wouldn't count' either, at least not for me. That's a differnce of Bush's performance, not just Bush, as if he exists in some sort of vacuum utterly outside his presidency.

I found this article grating, doubly so because I feel he is waving the bloody shirt of Darfur in hopes it will obscure the chip on his shoulder. I don't know Ralph Peters. Is he some sort of right wing crank?