Darfur

So why is it that we should go into Darfur when we are told that going into Iraq was a mistake? Democrats will never explain this inconsistency.
Let's look at the undisputable facts regarding Iraq. We will completely leave WMD (or at least their presence at the time of invasion) out of this discussion. Saddam was in violation of the peace treaty that he signed to end the earlier Gulf War following his invasion of Kuwait. Not only was he not participating with the weapons inspectors, and had even kicked them out on several occasions, but he was firing on planes, in violation of that treaty. He had previously used biological weapons against the Kurds in the north. He was enacting a genocidal policy against the ethnic minority marsh Arabs. He was in violation of the Oil-for-Food program. He slaughtered thousands of Iraqis, the full measure of which we may never know as we continue to uncover mass graves. And he was subsidizing Palestinian suicide bombers in their attacks against Israel, paying the families of these nutjobs thousands of dollars for the homicidal actions of their offspring. And finally, terrorist groups were operating within Iraq and setting up training camps, if not with the full cooperation of the Iraqi government then at least with their tacit approval. Nothing could operate in that country without Saddam's permission, and you expect us to believe that these groups operated completely in the dark?
Now, lets look at Darfur. We have Janjaweed militias, almost certainly working with the backing of the government, killing ethnic minorities. So how does this merit military action when Iraq, a much larger threat to the region and the world, was involved in so much more?
For that matter, why Somalia, why Bosnia, but not Iraq? Apparently Dems don't believe in taking military action when there is even a hint of benefit to the United States. They are only interested in regional conflicts that do not impact our national interests in the least.