Quietly scanning the op-ed page this morning amid the chaos of my family's morning routine, I felt a surge of hope when I came across Michael Gerson's piece about the Bush administration's newly hardened line on Sudan. I was somewhat deflated when I read the piece through and wondered if I missed something. Where was the I'm-finally-out-of-the-White-House-and-can-speak-freely passionate compassion that everyone says Michael Gerson carries about in loads? Why isn't he lauding the administration and demanding they go further, push harder, move more boldly to end the genocide?

Rich Stazinski at Citizens for Global Solutions has an answer:

Apparently Gerson's commitment to ending the genocide in Darfur stops at supporting one of the ICC or moving beyond rhetoric and holding his former colleagues to the same standards that he once held our allies. Michael Gerson is by all accounts a moral man and brilliant public servant. So why then can't he bring himself to fully supporting a diplomatically robust, internationally engaged, multilateralist U.S. role in the global efforts to bring peace and security to the people of Darfur? Maybe he just couldn't find the words.