Why Darfur and Not Iraq?

Celebrity hypocrisy at it's finest:

Thousands of people rallied Sunday on the National Mall against human rights abuses in Darfur, joining celebrities, politicians and activists who called on the Bush administration to strengthen its efforts to end the violence in Sudan's western region.

"Let's tell President Bush he needs to do more," said David Rubenstein, coordinator of the Save Darfur Coalition, an alliance of 165 religious and humanitarian groups that sponsored the rally. "His heart is in the right place, but he is not doing enough. We need George Bush to work harder to save Darfur now."

People came from as far away as California to send that message and to hear such speakers as actor George Clooney, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Nobel Peace Prize winner and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel and Olympic speedskating gold medalist Joey Cheek.

The Save Darfur Coalition wants Bush to push harder for a stronger multinational peacekeeping force to protect people in Darfur. Its members have collected more than 750,000 postcards urging him to do so.

George Clooney has been an outspoken critic of going into Iraq... so why is he for invading Darfur? Saddam engaged in genocide, torture, and other unthinkable crimes... so what makes Darfur different? I'm not saying that Darfur is not a problem, and that we probably should do more there. What I'm asking is what makes it different than Iraq? If anyone who reads my blog thinks it was wrong to go into Iraq, but that we should go into Dafur, could you explain the reasoning for me? Every article that I've read so far about the Darfur rallies have conveniently forgotten to mention even a word about Iraq.