Why Dennis Kucinich is wrong on Darfur

In one of the democratic debates Dennis Kucinich claimed

"If Darfur had a large supply of oil, this administration would be occupying it right now."

Well, I wonder if Kucinich didn't do his research or if he's purposefully prevaricating but there is literally tons of oil in Sudan in general and Darfur in particular. The estimated 500 million to 5 BILLION barrels of oil in Sudan dwarfs the combined oil reserves of the six Persian Gulf nations.

Back in 2005 a millionaire from the U.K. bought up the Darfur oil rights. Is it any surprise that interest in the situation in Darfur grew dramatically after that?

Also while most of the pressure on Darfur is being aimed at the Sudanese government, what about the rebels themselves? In Aug 2007 a major rebel leader refused to attend peace talks with leaders from rival rebel groups. If the rebel groups can't even agree to meet with each other than why is all of the blame for the civil war being laid at the feet of the Sudanese government?

Finally, I am no fan of the Sudanese regime. I think they are horrible despots. But so was Saddam Hussein. If it was a mistake to go to war with Iraq to end one despotic regime than it is a mistake to threaten war with Sudan to end another despotic regime. When Clinton was president many on the left blindly went along with the war in Kosovo. It was later revealed that many of our "allies" in that war were affiliated with Al Qaeda. While Kucinich has not to my knowledge endorsed war with Sudan, I find it disturbing that he is either ignorant of the facts on such an important issue or is purposefully misleading his own followers. Either doesn't bode well for someone who wants to be the next president of the U.S. Equally disturbing is the fact that the mainstream media didn't call him out on this.