Michelle is a bit frustrated (understatement) about the knee-jerk (quite literally) response which immediately labels any good news from Iraq as a fabrication. She deals with the issue quite nicely and then pens this little gem:

It is interesting to juxtapose the left's feelings about Iraq with their feelings about Sudan.

After reading through this DU thread about the genocide taking place in Sudan, I was struck by this post:

I've always wished that Africa could deal with its own problems. But since it can't(or won't), we have no choice but to intervene here in some manner. I would personally threaten the Sudanese government with war unless they stopped.

Threaten them with war? For the crime of killing their own people? But isn't that what Saddam was doing? Remember those mass graves?

But the left will turn that around and say, we went to war over WMD and we haven't found those stockpiles yet.

So, because we didn't go to war over what you thought was a good reason, the fact that we stopped Saddam from committing even more genocide doesn't matter? Yet, it matters in Sudan. Why? Why make this about your agenda? Why are the tortured, murderered people of Iraq any less important to you than the dying people of Sudan? And if we do go to war with the Sudanese government and our soldiers die in the process, who will you blame?

Maybe they would change their tune on Sudan if they realized that its primary export is the same evil natural resource found in Iraq. It might be better to just try and find an oppressive people without any resources. Nothing against the poor Sudanese people...its just that the whole conflict-of-interest thing is such a downer.