Bravely endorsing no one

The Phoenix New Times' Michael Lacey says he can't vote for either Bush or Kerry, then spends the rest of his confused 6,798 words fighting with Arizona State art students and fisking Michael Moore's movie all over again. Huh?

His main premise appears to be that Saddam's genocide is ignored by anti-war activists, and he has a point: I do believe it's too easily shrugged off. But it also seems like the main reason the world community (U.N., European dissenters, etc.) didn't come on board for the war was the transparency of Republican intentions to pick up the spoils. In other words, they'd have been a lot more likely to join in our efforts to stop the genocide if it didn't seem like we were doing it to free up the oilfields. The world has that impression, and they're right to be suspicious.

Lacey writes:

"There is something so insistently out of place with Democrats, moderates, liberals -- bleeding hearts all -- and their refusal to confront Hussein's genocide that I cannot help but wonder if Islamic bloodshed, like Rwandan, is simply too foreign to elicit sympathy."

I don't think that's the case at all. But are Iraqi civilian deaths as a result of the war "too foreign to elicit sympathy" from Dick Cheney, who only counts Iraqi warrior deaths when it's time to debate John Edwards? Are genocides in Rwanda and Darfur "too foreign to elicit sympathy" when they don't take place above massive oil reserves? Y'know, in parts of the world that matter?