This is what I mean

When you take the Bush Administration's claim that regardless of the lack of WMDs, or an Al Qaeda connection, we were doing the humanitarian thing going to war to oust Saddam Hussein. "The torture chambers and rape rooms are closed," President Numbnuts is fond of saying. Fine, even forgetting about the tortures and rapes that occurred at Abu Ghraib on the part of 'Americans'. But if that's the case, why haven't we gone after, aguably, more dispicable tyrants and regimes? From Matt Yglesias:

Sudan

For the record, those folks out there who were so eager for America to involve itself in a little humanitarian do-goodery ought to take a look at a genuine humanitarian emergency. Once upon a time I would have counted myself a strong proponent of the view that we ought to be willing to deploy the American military to try and halt a genocide, but the reality is that the whole Army's in Iraq. That we can't solve all the world's problems was a cliché of the 90s-era debates over humanitarian intervention, but right now we're stretched so thin that we can't solve any of them.

Meanwhile, the government of Sudan somehow got itself on the UN's Human Rights Commission and the European opponents of American hegemony have managed to allow an extremely wealth continent with over 300 million inhabitants to have no real capacity for military action independent of the United States, so even those countries who wisely stayed out of the fray in Iraq can do almost nothing. A lovely world.

And there are other places in Africa, and the Far East, more deserving of U.S. attention than Iraq. But then, they aren't floating on a sea of oil, are they? Had we not squandered our resources and treasure in Iraq, we might be able to help more people who desperately deserve it.