Get a load of this lousy fuck writing for the Sudan Tribune (emphases mine):
[...E]ven if you accept the need for intervention of some kind in Sudan, whom would you trust to do it? To continue the medical metaphor, would you call on Jack the Ripper to carry out the operation? He was by all accounts an expert anatomist, and had an impressive set of instruments: but both his motivation and his post-operative care left something to be desired.
For most of the world, Bush has about the same credibility in the healing arts as the old London-fog night prowler. Not only has the invasion of Iraq raised the barrier against any serious international consensus for action in Sudan, too vigorous a push by the US for it would probably stiffen resistance.
One can indeed despair of the Arab world's tolerance for its own rulers' barbarities. But we have to admit that after the war on Iraq, the treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the US's total protection for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's pogroms in Gaza, and the xenophobic anti-Muslim and anti-Arab outbursts in the US, it is hardly surprising that many governments and their people across the world will cut some slack for any Arab regime in the face of US "concern" at its behavior.
This stupid fuck, Ian Williams, is saying that the actions of George W. Bush and Tony Blair in executing the will of the UN with respect to Iraq (some 17 resolutions' worth) actually justify the cynical inaction of Arab governments in condemning the genocide being perpetrated by the Khartoum-backed Janjaweed militias. Get it? Condoning the slaughter of innocent villagers who live over some choice drilling spots is actually a protest vote against the Crusaders. A protest vote! Like voting to authorize force against a tyrannical regime and then voting against the funding that would rebuild the society being liberated. Ahh, the nuance of it all!
But this probably self-loathing journalistic refugee has one more bit of wisdom that must be read (emphases mine):
So the question of support or opposition for intervention is a genuine quandary, but it is surely important that we do not let people die in Sudan just so we can feel vindicated in our stand against interventions. A credible threat of intervention has to be made soon - but kept within those "precautionary principles".
It seems that Williams recognizes the moral rot of his position, but is unwilling to overcome it. He and his fellow anti-war Leftists don't want to get snared in the trap of their own hypocrisy, but they have read enough of their manuals to know that they can't really excuse genocide, so what to do? He believes that intervention cannot be credibly led by those evil Americans and Britons, but that the "threat" of intervention, carried out by other African countries (with American money behind them, of course) will be enough to deter these Arab guerillas on horseback. Right. Intervention is bad if done by white Crusaders, less bad if done by black Africans with white Crusader money and logistics behind them.
I know. Williams is the Wise Voice of Internationalism, drunk on its ass and ashamed of looking Uncle Sam in the eye.