*Sigh*.... Well, it's hard to argue against a position of total cynicism, except to point out that there's little to no evidence to support it.

If someone said something like: "Martin Luther King was just in it for the babes", and pointed out his indiscretions, what would be the best way to respond? I suppose to point out that it's a narrow-minded point of view, illogical to the point of silliness, and that the totality of the evidence doesn't support it.

If Bush were trying to make money for oil cronies, there are lots of better ways to do it than invading Iraq. For example, why not just destroy all the Iraqi oil fields? Price of oil skyrockets, cronies get rich.

Sorry, you have to present some evidence, or at least some logical argument, rather than just make wild charges.