I confess that I watched the Democrat debate Sunday night. I paid pretty close attention for the first half, but by the second half I had it going on the second TV as I played Forza Motorsport 2 on the Hi-Def Tube. I must admit that driving fast and listening to Democrats is not the best way to stay away from the walls surrounding a race track.

But what I honestly didn't understand was the strange disconnnect between the Democrats views of what should be done in Iraq -- run away and damn the consequences -- versus what would be seen in President George W. Bush as more warmongering -- sending troops to Darfur to stop the genocide there.

Personally, I think we probably should damn the useless U.N. and destroy the Sudanese Air Force, which is used by those committing the genocide as an air transport service and platform for attacks. I think we probably ought to look into arming the targets of the genocide. I know some weenie liberals would say that more guns only begets more violence, but it's much harder to systematically kill a population when they're armed -- and without the advantage of an Air Force it starts to look more like a fair fight. And a fair fight is not something the murdering bastards have the stomach for.

Sen. Joe Biden actually talked about putting 2,500 NATO troops in Darfur to try to keep the peace. Good luck with that. They'll be American troops or nobody's troops. Does he really think he's going to be able to get the Germans or British or Canadians to send troops to the Sudan? Everyone likes to talk about stopping the genocide, but no one actually has the political fortitude to do anything.

And just wait until some of those troops start dying -- either due to "keeping the peace" or mere operational accidents. Shortly after the USS Cole attack, a Navy admiral famously declared that there were only two safe places in the world for U.S. Navy ships, San Diego and Norfolk. That sort of analysis is probably right when it comes to members of the other armed services.

I just don't understand the Democrats when it comes to foreign policy. Their single-mindedness when it comes from pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq with little mind for the consequences (see this piece by Dan Senor in today's Wall Street Journal) seems at odds with their oft-stated belief that the U.S. should somehow be the world's policeman. Yes, they say they don't want us to be the world's top cop, but listen to what they say about Darfur and what they've done in the past in Kosovo and Bosnia.

It's almost as if the Democrat Party has this split personality, they behave like isolationists but talk as if they're globalists focused on making the world a better place -- as long as that means no U.S. casualties.

I don't understand how that's going to be credible with the U.S. electorate -- or, if a Democrat is elected to the White House, with the rest of the world.