Washington Post continues to publish propaganda on Darfur

The Washington Post continues to have no qualms about publishing propaganda on Darfur. "Sudan's dictator gets nastier," the Washington Post tells its readers today in an editorial (author not cited) entitled Backtracking in Darfur. I wonder who wrote it and why their name was not revealed. On reading the editorial closely, I saw no fact based news but a piece of activism calling for UN troops in Darfur and the isolation of Khartoum regime. Clearly it states, quote:

"This year, Sudan's government declared that it would allow United Nations peacekeepers into the western region of Darfur."

I challenge the Washington Post to please explain exactly when and where GoS agreed to allow UN peacekeepers into Darfur. From what I have gathered here at Sudan Watch, Khartoum never once agreed to such a force. Please correct me if I have missed something. The peace deal in southern Sudan is quite different from that in Darfur, western Sudan. South Sudan's Comprehensive Peace Agreement had a UN peackeeping force built into it before it was signed, the Darfur Peace Agreement had no such force written into it. Apart from talk about the "extermination of Muslims", the last line of the piece I find most revealing, quote:

But if Mr. Bashir's shameless outpourings are not enough to solidify diplomatic efforts to isolate his regime, it's hard to know what would be.

Diplomatic efforts to isolate the regime eh? Sounds like Darfur rebel talk.

More activism being passed off as hard news

See June 22 2006 Sudan Watch - Human Rights Watch incorrectly says Khartoum is backtracking - excerpt:

In an interview June 22, 2006, Human Rights Watch (HRW) Deputy Director for Africa, Georgette Gagnon tells Voice of America English to Africa reporter Howard Lesser: "There seems to be some disconnect. Obviously, we must remember that when the Darfur peace agreement was being negotiated, the Khartoum government said that it would accept UN troops to come in and monitor a peace agreement. Now, it's backtracking." This is not true.