Mark Steyn is angry:

Nancy [Pelosi] flew up for the reference to Darfur and the Dems all leapt up to follow. It's surely very revealing that the Democrats seem most enthused about the one issue where all you have to do is posture ineffectually while the UN stonewalls until everybody's been killed. But on Iraq or anywhere else America moves beyond posturing to action the Dems sit on their hands.

This has been a big meme on the right lately: How can Democrats and liberals support ending genocide in Darfur while at the same time opposing the war in Iraq? Let's just leave aside the fact that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were not being slaughtered in 2003 (and, needless to add, Iraq was still surely a terrible place to live). Regardless of how difficult you think taking action in Darfur would be, the idea that there is something inconsistent about being in favor of armed intervention for humanitarian purposes when it doesn't include spending hundreds of billions of dollars, invading and occupying a hostile country in the Middle East, and seeing thousands of Americans die, and being against armed intervention when it does, well ... call me hypocritical. All that aside, however, there is something unseemly about the entire Congress standing and applauding the idea of bringing aid to Sudan when, of course, no one in the room is going to do anything of substance. --Isaac Chotiner