By and large, the Democratic party was against U.S. intervention in Iraq, but is now moving towards a pro-interventionist policy in Liberia. That's the stated policy of presidential candidate Howard Dean, and it's one I've personally known some liberal-minded friends to endorse recently.

The question is, why? Iraq was worse by far in its human rights abuses, worse by far in pursuing weapons programs that would threaten other countries, and worse by far in supporting international terrorism. Even if you don't believe an Iraq-Al Qaida link, Saddam Hussein openly and publicly rewarded the families of Palestinian human bombs for killing Israelis. What's more, U.S. vital interests were at stake in Iraq, while none are at stake in Liberia. It makes no sense.

From Charles Krauthammer via Bill Hobbs:

The only conclusion one can draw is that for liberal Democrats, America's strategic interests are not just an irrelevance, but a deterrent to intervention. This is a perversity born of moral vanity. For liberals, foreign policy is social work. National interest - i.e., national selfishness - is a taint. The only justified interventions, therefore, are those which are morally pristine, namely, those which are uncorrupted by any suggestion of national interest.

Hence the central axiom of left-liberal foreign policy: The use of American force is always wrong, unless deployed in a region of no strategic significance to the United States.