Can't Have It Both Ways

People (mostly liberals) are "crying out" for us to intervene in Darfur as that country's government kills its citizens in wholesale quantities. Meanwhile they criticize George Bush for stopping Saddam Hussein from doing the same in Iraq. What's the difference? The answer is simple: the president is a Republican and they hate him. WhatEVER he does is going to be wrong. Meanwhile, people are still dying in Iraq, mostly at the hands of either Sunnis or their opposite number, people who have been killing each other for thousands of years. We accomplished our main goal in Iraq in the first week. Saddam is gone and they have a government of their own making in place, complete with a constitution. That the violence continues is not OUR deficiency. It is the deficiency of the factions in Iraq, who will always be killing one another. Americans are dying only because they're there. Saddam murdered 300,000 in just one atrocity. They've "only" counted 400,000 total in Darfur. So why was it a "mistake" to go into Iraq, but not into Darfur? (Darfur)