Ranting to /dev/null

Be sure to include Moore's buddies the French.

Why can't both be true?

If you can show me one instance of a Bush family member or administration senior official gaining any money (aside from normal investment: owning stock as part of a diversified portfolio doesn't count) from the war in Iraq I'd be interested to see the evidence.

The allegations about Halliburton have nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with US corporations exploiting the US government's remarkably loose fiscal controls. If it hadn't been Iraq, it'd have been something else, and by current standards nothing they've done is anything but routine.

They don't just hate the Bushies. It's Cheney, Rummy, and Condi too. Always the assumption that America is wrong.

To build on your point about Halliburton, what person in their right mind would make the company they just left look better while someone else takes the credit? There's no way that the VP would be showing favoritism toward his former employer.

I'm not saying whether the Bushes are or aren't profiting from oil in Iraq, because I frankly don't know for sure.

But the implication in your original post is that it's an either/or thing. Proving that UN officials are corrupt doesn't negate what the Bush administration did or didn't do.

It might generally be a flawed argument to assert that it's an either/or thing, but I think Ryan is saying that the reason the UN didn't support the effort to remove a dictator who had thumbed his nose at them, committed egregious human rights violations, and created a culture that bred terrorism was because the UN had a vested interest in seeing Saddam remain in power. The UN left the President with little choice but to act in its stead.

The only implication I was going for was that the media and other leftist organizations seem to care a lot more about increasingly dubious allegations of Bush involvement in Iraq than increasingly solid evidence of UN bureaucrats' and European involvement there.