While people are still crying over the missing artifacts, a much more important ancient artifact was really destroyed by Saddam Hussein: the Tigris-Euphrates wetlands, which may have been the inspiration for the story of the Garden of Eden. Why did he do it? To get back at the Marsh Arabs for opposing his regime. He didn't even bother using the excuse that he wanted to build a new Walmart. Anyway, it looks as if now that he is out of there, the marshes can be at least partially restored. Read the whole story. (And I agree with Glenn Reynolds: Bush will still be considered an anti-environmentalist president, mostly because he declined to ratify a useless piece of paper (the Kyoto thing).
Posted by Andrea Harris at April 18, 2003 11:22 AMA documentary film about the destruction of the marshes--and the people who lived there--came out about two years ago (Done by an independent filmmaker). If this had been shown on TV, it would have helped inform people about the true nature of the Saddam regime. Given what they knew from their own experience, didn't CNN have a particular responsibility to do this?
Posted by: David Foster at April 18, 2003 at 05:39 PMI thought it was Congress who ratify or fail to ratify treaties! Your not a European in disguise are you, Andrea?
Posted by: Steven Chapman at April 18, 2003 at 09:33 PMI know that, I just couldn't remember the proper term for whatever it is Bush did or didn't do re Kyoto. Congress was about 95% against, as I recall? But it gets blamed on Bush, because, well, he's the dummy in the White House this year, with the magic wand and the books of spells and so on. Clinton was no more interested in approving/getting behind/encouraging/signing off on it -- whatever it is -- than Bush, but he just wasn't blunt about it. Instead he'd turn on that Bubba charm and all the reporters and diplomats would wiggle with delight and then roll over and show their tummies. Bush came along, and he's like the guy with the rolled up newspaper.
What was I talking about? Jeez, I need coffee or something.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 18, 2003 at 10:50 PMWasn't it Clinton who failed to get Congress to pass Kyoto? Or was that just the nuclear testing treaty?
Posted by: Grayson at April 19, 2003 at 02:36 AMClinton signed a bunch of things -- including Kyoto -- and then refused to submit them for ratification because he knew the Senate would reject them.
Posted by: Kevin McGehee at April 19, 2003 at 10:48 AMAndrea, I think the Senate indicated that it would not support implementation of the treaty without substantial modifications by a 95-0 vote. That is, not a single Senator was willing to go on record as supporting implementation of Kyoto "as is."
Posted by: Michelle Dulak at April 19, 2003 at 11:39 AM