liberation hypocrisy

Sunday's Washington Post has this editorial about the genocidal violence that's been occurring in Darfur, Sudan for years with (until recently) little or no international attention. In this case innocent civilians are being killed en masse by radical fundamentalist Islamic militias supported by the Sudanese government. Based on our rationale for the war in Iraq, this presents a quandry for the Bush administration. Did we go to war to liberate the Iraqi people? Was it about ending a state that supports terrorism? Was it about oil? The situation in Sudan involves ALL of these things, so it seems pretty hypocritical that we sit on our hands while scores of Sudanese civilians are killed or displaced by precisely the kind of people we should be targeting in the "War on Terror". Have we lost our priorities? Is our military stretched too thin? Or does political haymaking trump the lives of Sudanese men, women and children?