Michele is tying all her posts on this together. She also links to this post (for April 14th, 11:58pm -- you know, Blogspot). And I have found some pictures of the missing treasures. They are certainly very pretty and obviously important pieces of work, and if they were left in glass cases or even in vaults in the museum where people could get at them then I am the Queen of Thailand. Of course, I could be wrong, but I don't think so. As we have already seen, there are people who would put precious antiquities (especially pretty ones made of gold) before anything else, and I don't think they are all on this side of the globe.
Update: Instapundit has a link to this excerpt from Kanan Makiya's war diary. He's in Kuwait, talking by satellite phone to some friends in Baghdad:
One friend told me that the looting of the National Museum--something that cut deeply into me--was the work of newly deposed Baathist officials, who had been selling off our patrimony as they saw their days were numbered. As the regime fell, these (ex-)Baathists went back for one last swindle, and took with them treasures that dated back 9,000 years, to the Sumerians and the Babylonians. One final crime perpetrated by Saddam's thugs.
Interesting.
Posted by Andrea Harris at April 15, 2003 10:57 AMMakes more sense than some cabal of US Military and Israeli Mossad agents, working that the behest of American Art Dealers.
Posted by: *** Dave at April 15, 2003 at 11:32 AMyeah, it was the Baathists. they're the ones! Or maybe the shi'ites. makes sense, since they've got a lot of resentment. But the sunnis have the numbers, so maybe they did it. Or is it the other way around? Then again, the American art dealers, backed by the marines, certainly could have perpetrated the crime. On the other hand, this reminds me of Clinton and the blue dress, or maybe Waco.
Oh, man. Pass the ouzo.
This is worse than Enron.
Posted by: yeah at April 16, 2003 at 12:10 AMSo, yeah, have you gotten your own blog yet? Yeah, I didn't think so.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 16, 2003 at 12:38 AMI have to be honest when I say I don't get your point on this post.
Posted by: mat at April 16, 2003 at 02:52 PMThis post is a continuation of some previous posts I wrote on the museum looting. This one, and this one. My point may be somewhat more clear after you read those two. Short synopsis: while the theft of these artifacts is bad, having hysterics over their theft is worse.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 17, 2003 at 12:26 AM"...while the theft of these artifacts is bad, having hysterics over their theft is worse."
It is? I think the loss of artifacts is much worse. Hey, we invaded, we caused the chaos, and it is our duty as occupiers to try our best to protect both the people and the infrastructure. I am not sure how the criticism of our failure in this area is worse than losing precious artifacts to gangs of looters and thieves.
I am personally not "hysterical" over it, nor are many of the critics. I think "despondent" might be a better word. I’m glad you feel the need to criticize the critics. But their base argument is sound, hysterical or not though their subsequent criticism may be. If this is a clash of civilizations as many of you who are for this war (and the ones to follow) claim, wouldn’t you rather be on the side that does care about these things? Even when it grates on your nerves as it obviously does, Andrea?
Posted by: mat at April 17, 2003 at 10:44 AM