| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| Bush Art Advisers Quit Over Iraq Looting |
| 2003-04-18 |
| EFL Three members of the White House Cultural Property Advisory Committee have resigned to protest the looting of Baghdad's National Museum of Antiquities. Martin E. Sullivan, Richard S. Lanier and Gary Vikan, each appointed by former President Clinton, said they were disappointed by the U.S. military's failure to protect Iraq's historical artifacts. Why were these appointees still hanging around anyway? That earns this the "fifth column" classification. "The tragedy was not prevented, due to our nation's inaction," Sullivan, the committee's chairman, wrote in his letter of resignation. Inaction? Well, a couple of divisions were out for a drive... Noting that American scholars had told the State Department about the location of Iraqi museums and historic sites in Iraq, he said the president "is burdened by a compelling moral obligation to plan for and try to prevent indiscriminate looting and destruction." Lanier criticized "the administration's total lack of sensitivity and forethought regarding the Iraq invasion and the loss of cultural treasures." Vikan said in a separate interview that he saw "a failure on the part of the United States to interdict what is now an open floodgate." If Allah's treasures are stolen by Allah's followers, couldn't only Allah could have willed it? |
| Posted by:Mark IV |
| #24 If the Islaofacist manage to take control of Iraq,then by Sharia Law,there are going to be one hell of a lot of one handed people running around Iraq. |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-04-19 08:47:01 |
| #23 Hope that stuffs dishwaser safe. |
| Posted by: Brew 2003-04-19 01:15:20 |
| #22 if anybody sees anything, on ebay or anywhere else, word of mouth, whatever: report it!!! it really is ammo for the US-haters, we need to try our best to recover these antiquities. |
| Posted by: anon1 2003-04-18 20:41:02 |
| #21 Quit worrying about the Lost Treasure Vaults of Baghdad. They will soon be popping up in the clandestine antiquities markets of the world. And then we can recover them, one way or another. Now, Indy may be a getting a little long in the tooth but what of his grandchildren [can you visualize this movie?]. Of course there is always Laura Croft [Tomb Raider] or Sydney Fox [Relic Hunter], who despite being imaginary, posses the vital chracteristic of being very, very pleasant to watch. "This belongs in a museum!" |
| Posted by: emery 2003-04-18 17:41:51 |
| #20 I certainly hope Blair doesnt run on the right - i agree with him (and with Hitchens, despite Hitch's obnoxiousness on some other issues) that this the liberation of Iraq is NOT in contradiction with Social Democratic principles - that a full, commited Social Democractic approach to social justice incorporates a concern for the spread of democracy - even as we acknowledge and struggle with the desirability of recognition of sovereignty and international organization as limits on the rule of force. Nor does a turning away from certain leftist vested interests imply that the market always generates a just or desirable solution, and one cannot simply turn away from those concerns. To some extent the moral compass problem derives from the Dems electoral problem - the US, unlike the UK is split down the middle between the right and the center-left/left coalition. That means that for the Dems to win they must nominate someone who can paper over the split between third way,centerleft, liberalhawks, and the full "progressive" left. And it takes someone with the waffling ability of a Clinton to do that. Already there is talk that only Kerry is nimble enough (IE sleazy enough) to win in '04. The only ways out of this are either a decline of the Dem left, or a shift of the whole spectrum far enough to the left to create a situation like UK where the 3rd way can win and not be held hostage by the left. the latter seems unlikely - the GOP is not as brain dead as the UK Tories, and the political culture is different - and I cant see the left going away either. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-04-18 16:55:00 |
| #19 Lhawk - I was going to say, but forgot, (now you know I'M old) your musings betray a struggle of heart that reminds me of Blair. (And he might just as well come out of the closet and run on the right next time, he won't win otherwise) I thought it interesting you used the phrase 'moral compass', the very reason I can't vote Democratic anymore. (even tho I don't have enough money to vote Repub!) But I respect people who take principled positions, even if I disagree and even if they can't articulate them as clearly as some of the more vocal can. (the reason I prefer Shrub to Dad) If you think dems can't win in '04 and you still have some party clout, get them to run Hillary (wink). |
| Posted by: Scott 2003-04-18 14:28:36 |
| #18 scott - thanks (blushes) Not so much JFK, as Hubert Horatio Humphrey, Scoop Jackson, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan - closest I can come to that today is unfortunately not eligible of US office - I mean Tony Blair, of course. Clinton had much of the ideology right, but not the "moral compass" Gore appeared to have more moral compass than Clinton, but has had real problem defining himself - I fear he had too much success too soon, as well as privileged background (and, more than Bush, suffered from his own intelligence, which made it hard for him to keep it from going to his head) My hopes now are Lieberman - who has plenty of moral compass (despite usual political compromises) but hes not quite as liberal as I would like on domestic issues, and Im VERY nervous (as a Jew) about a Jew in office during the WOT. That leaves Edwards - Im still not sure if he has the needed gravitas. Not that i think the Dems can win in '04 - if we nominate anyone hawkish enough to have a chance with center, we'll lose the lefties to Nader. The math dont work for us, not now, anyway. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-04-18 14:05:37 |
| #17 Derbyshire has a great article about this on NRO... take a peek |
| Posted by: Tex 2003-04-18 13:48:30 |
| #16 Libhawk, you're real man. You must be an old time liberal. Back when liberal meant doing something for other people. MLK and JFK probably would not associate with the shrill, selfish, hate-filled posers who call themselves liberals today. I actually believe that consevatives are the current Progressives and modern liberalism is the new Reaction. I could just hear MLK say, just like he told Jesse, "Whatever it is you're doing Hillary, leave me out of it". |
| Posted by: Scott 2003-04-18 13:26:09 |
| #15 I might be restating others comments here, but I once debated with a Muslim about the merits of Islam, and he was quite insistant that the Koran was very clear about personal responcibility, which was his justification for some of the draconian punishments utilized in the middle east. The crime of theft is punishable by whacking off the hand with a sword, and we aren't talking about anestesia here either! Being such a "religious" region of the world, I guess the whole looting thing is a bit of a disconnect for me. Even when the 507th was ambushed, the very first thing that occurred was the stripping of the contents of the vehicles. Am I being politically incorrect by saying the looting was maybe a cultural thing? For a country that doesn't get good cable TV, these people sure turned Bagdad into the largest "Trading Spaces" episode ever. Even the old women participated. |
| Posted by: Capsu78 2003-04-18 11:40:23 |
| #14 Three members of the White House Cultural Property Advisory Committee have resigned to protest the looting of Baghdad's National Museum of Antiquities. So what's the insinuation here? That Bush is personally responsible for the looting? Marines are NOT the police, and they shouldn't have to be. No one in their right mind would put our military personnel in additional danger just to protect artifacts. If the local population doesn't give a crap about the artifacts themselves, why should we? |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-04-18 11:03:08 |
| #13 The glue holding Iraqi society together was fear of the Ba'athist Party machine. There was no self discipline to fall back on after the regime fell. Now look at all the honcho wannabes coming out of the woodwork post Sammy. It was their heritage to protect and they did not do it. I am sure that our military commanders did not want to create an incident where we would have to shoot a bunch of looters which would lead to the biggest riot Baghdad would have seen. Plus our troops were worried about real mean-type pockets of crazy resistance. We are not like the Ba'athists or the Soviets, where they would have stomped out opposition like so many bugs. In this case our humanity and caution is seen as a weakness. Iraqis have a lot of growing up to do. Afghanistan was the introductory offer. We have a big and challenging job ahead, trying to repair the Iraqi national melon. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-04-18 10:49:02 |
| #12 There's an article in today's Wash Post about this. Head of UNESCO says it was an inside job. I know i'm stating the obvious, but the USA will be blamed for everything that goes wrong in Iraq and receive no credit for what goes right. |
| Posted by: DJ Joey 2003-04-18 10:46:37 |
| #11 Note yesterday's post: It appears to have been an inside job - if the Iraqi museum had nothing of value left when we entered Baghdad, how can anyone without an agenda say we were in any way responsible? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-04-18 09:58:01 |
| #10 Just for the record, the Russians [Soviets] still have the Schliemann Troy booty they looted from Berlin in '45. Where's all the big outrage over that? Bunch of Transnational hypocrites. |
| Posted by: Don 2003-04-18 09:55:11 |
| #9 Not a single piece in that museum was worth the life of a single Marine or soldier. If they thought the stuff that was been buried for centuries was so important, why didn't they volunteer to be humanshields for it? Oh, that would require THEM to put their lives on the line. Bunch of self-important blood sucking parasites that in the end live off the product of others and return nothing. |
| Posted by: Don 2003-04-18 09:50:31 |
| #8 "The treasures stolen were from the pre-Allah days" Point taken, but if you're a True Believer (TM), there are no pre-Allah days. All treasures are Allah's (/casuistry). The theft of these artifacts is indeed a great loss. Perhaps Allah will prod some consciences into returning some of them, as reportedly happened elsewhere, but as you've pointed out this was a very deliberate act. Maybe we should Blixie on the trail... he's a professional Finder of Things, no? |
| Posted by: Mark IV 2003-04-18 09:42:52 |
| #7 sorry i just skimmed the posting, and mainly focused on the comments. My bad. Dubya may be capable of appointing idiots, but these guys were not his. They were Bill's. I stand corrected. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-04-18 08:53:13 |
| #6 Jeebus -- talk about your fifteen seconds of fame ... I wonder how many people even know somebody who knows somebody who knew that there was a White House Cultural Property Advisory Committee? |
| Posted by: John Phares 2003-04-18 08:51:30 |
| #5 "Three leftists gone in one event " Weren't these guys Bush appointees? Which doesnt mean they weren't idiots. You think Dubya is not capable of appointing idiots? Uh...what part of "each appointed by former President Clinton" did you refuse to understand? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-04-18 08:29:47 |
| #4 "Three leftists gone in one event " Weren't these guys Bush appointees? Which doesnt mean they weren't idiots. Youthink Dubya is not capable of appointing idiots? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-04-18 08:21:49 |
| #3 Way to go, Dubya, baby! Three leftists gone in one event and you didn't even have to lift a finger to do it |
| Posted by: badanov 2003-04-18 08:01:19 |
| #2 The treasures stolen were from the pre-Allah days. Uday's love shack and Sammy's palace art is more indicative of the Muslim era in Iraq. It's becoming clear that this was a case of theft, not 'looting' and was probably an inside job. These bozos were on TV last night saying that they were quitting because President Bush failed to detail a squad of soldiers and a few tanks to protect the museum. This is nothing more than a blatant stunt to attack the current administration. The soldiers were ordered not to return fire coming from the museum precisely because they had been ordered not to damage it. Besides, IMHO, these objects are not worth a single US casualty and I am glad our commanders on the ground made that judgement. |
| Posted by: JAB 2003-04-18 07:46:33 |
| #1 If the Islaofacist manage to take control of Iraq,then by Sharia Law,there are going to be one hell of a lot of one handed people running around Iraq. |
| Posted by: raptor 4/19/2003 8:47:01 AM |