« it's a linkorama | Main | self lovin' in the archives »

the vast left wing conspiracy

By now you know that All Along, Most Iraqi Relics Were Safe and Sound.

By now you know that there will be no retractions or apologies from the people who wanted Bush impaled on a stick for all the "looting" that took place.

Museum staff members had taken some of the more valuable items home and are now returning them.

The confusion arose, in part, because many of the museum's best pieces had been removed long before U.S. troops entered Baghdad, George said.

Come on guys, you can do it. Just three little words is all I need.

I. Was. Wrong.

Is that so hard?

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference the vast left wing conspiracy:

» VLWC from Inoperable Terran
The Iraqi artifacts were safe all along. Michele's pressing the point in light of the new evidence.... [Read More]

» Recursive museum updates from Making Light
Start with the joyful news that many of you will have already heard, which is that the Baghdad museum lost [Read More]

Comments

You know-

No matter how this was bungled, mishandled and misreported, I am glad to know that the treasures and antiquities are mostly safe.

How can they possibly be wrong when they are so morally superior?

snicker

Driving home from work a couple of days ago, I hear Daniel Schorr snidely commenting on how we won the war and were losing the peace. He starts off with this looting as an example. Of course, it had already been widely reported that the number of pieces were exaggerated. Seems like if you want credibility, you would start with something that hadn't already been proven false. Oh wait, that is only in a rational universe...

Screw that, I want to see the Hayden twins and that Vera freak puke up an apology. Fuckers.

Is that so hard? Hah! If there's one thing I know about leftists, it's that they'd sooner DIE than admit they were wrong about anything. That's their whole thing-- it's not about DOING right, it's about BEING right. Or at least making themselves LOOK right.

Damn, there goes my excuse for missing work: "Can't make it in today, all out of sorts over the priceless treasures of Babylon that were looted, you know."

Ok, I was wrong...the looting of the Baghdad museum did not result in the loss of important artifacts, thank goodness. (Nor, I should say in passing, did it turn out to be "the Iraqi regime" behind the removal, so I'm in good company.) So the stuff was saved thanks to both the careful planning and quick thinking of the museum staff...it doesn't change the fact that the US could've stopped much of the madness with a tank and a handful of soldiers. Did we know that the museum staff were going to save the day when it looked like a fire sale over there? If we did, Rummy would have mentioned it the very next day.

We got lucky - thanks to the historians and antiquarians of the Baghdad museum, we've kept one of the the world's premiere archives of the Ancient World. To my mind, those people are heroes. But their quick thinking doesn't absolve the Bushies of lousy priorities in this instance, So, I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but all the smug schadenfreude conservatives are hoping to wallow in on this issue might still be misplaced.

But, since we're crying mea culpa today, how many of y'all out there want to return the favor and admit you were wrong about Clinton's impeachment? Come on guys, you can do it. Just three little words is all I need.

Yeah, maybe we COULDVE protected the museum, but that's not what we were there for. We were fighting a WAR. We had much bigger fish to fry than keeping the Iraqis from looting their own damn country. It's not our fault or our responsibility if they want to behave like criminals. Our job was to depose a regime, not protect a bunch of old pots and coins from looters.

Lies! Terrible Lies! Jackbooted Republican lies!

I myself have nearly 800 Iraqi treasures that I bought off eBay. Priceless! Mostly for a BuyItNow of $23.99 or less.

And they were looted by American soldiers! I got Polaroids, so back off!

I have no problem saying "I was outraged for no reason". Now, when I hear the same from the right side about Jessica Lynch, dead babies clutching dolls, WMDs and the rest, I'll know that we're all acknowledging we got sucked in by the fog of war.

For Kevin:

1) Humans are more important than things. Funny, usually it's the libs that say that. Otherwise, what Dave said.

2) Impeachment - BULLSHIT!

The bastard perjured himself, bombed people to distract the news media, boinked an intern on company time, and stole nearly 1000 times as many FBI files as Nixon stole. That's plenty for impeachment. He should have been convicted, no matter how many historians think otherwise.

Ken,

1) I never argued any different, nor would most liberals. So try reading what I actually wrote rather than hurling straw men my way - it's what the links are for.

2) Historians are all full of it, eh? Well, perhaps you haven't been keeping up with current events, but Robert Ray cleared the Clintons in the FBI filegate episode years ago. And as for "The bastard...bombed people to distract the news media..." Um, is now really the best time to be going there? Or have we forgotten about everything that's happened since the summer of Enron and the energy crisis? Be careful what you consider grounds for impeachment, 'cause as John Dean recently noted ( a man who knows a good deal about impeachable offenses), it might just blow up in your face.

How about a compromise?

You poor folks stop playing high school games by dividing the world into neat little teams that you can play off one another like some fucked up soccer tournament, and i'll give up the WMDs that I stole off the Iraqis before the Coalition invaded...

Just as soon as I get the exact position of the creators of Will and Grace, prepare for armageddon, fuckers....

Thankyou and goodnight.

I\ Could care less about the treasures....The Statue of liberyt could go away. The liberty bell could disappear. the Grand canyon could refil, but I would not care. For once in these people's lives they are free. No more staged rallies, no more polical executions, no more supressed information. Ancient treasure or freedom from oppresion.. I'll take freedom. It's up to them what they want.

Kevin:

1) My point is that it is utterly ridiculous to blame the military for failing to stop looting during a war. There are higher priorities. That kind of focused coverage on a meaningless distraction can only be interpreted as an attempt to delegimize the war..

2) Okay, I will apologize for the tone but the substance is still there (possibly excepting the FBI files). Perjury stands, as does the bombing. And you can throw in obstruction of justice.

I don't understand the "summer of Enron" comment. Are you claiming that Enron is an indictment of the Bush administration? If so, I must point out that all of the Enron and related abuses were going on during the Clinton administration. They got caught during the Bush administration.

Implying that the Iraq battle was only to distract the media is to ignore 12 years of flaunting UN sanctions (what was it, 18 at last count?), to ignore that Clinton and Congressional Democrats called for regime change in Iraq (but refused to back it up), to ignore that the UN itself said (repeatedly) that Iraq had WMD programs, to ignore that Saddam financially supported terrorists, to ignore that Bush put muscle behind the UN's impotent posturing, and to ignore that the rules radically changed on 9/11/01.

Yeah, I know we're off subject but I'm still working on the first cup of coffee.

You forgot the fourth word - "Again".

I. Was. Wrong. Again.

Sure thing - I was wrong that the looters of the museum, unprotected by the spread-far-too-thin invading forces, took thousands of objects. Thankfully, the curators were smart enough to squirrel most of them away before the museum was left open to whomever wanted to wander in and plunder our cultural heritage.

But, as for the scale of the theft, I was wrong.

Ken,
Pardon me?

The problem with your arguments is that one already has to believe them before one can accept them. One has to believe that Bush was trying to cover up the fact that Clinton accepted money from Enron to push through a power plant in India. You have to accept the fact that Bush was so ashamed of his connection with Ken Lay that he pronounced Kyoto dead as a diversion to cover the relationship, since everyone knows that Ken Lay was gung ho for Kyoto. (Google the two together, Enron thought they stood to profit big from Kyoto) I guess that must have been the Enron input into the Energy Plan.

One must accept that Bush started the war for these and other nefarious reasons, none of which are nearly as plausible as his open explanations for his actions.

There are all sorts of other counter-intuitive beliefs that one must accept unexamined to come around to your arguments.

Clinton never disappointed his enemies, only his friends, as the pardons showed so clearly to all but the most devoted of their supporters.

"devoted"? I meant to say "deluded", sorry.

Spawn, I think you meant that for Kevin. I agree that all those are rather more implausible reasons than the ones Bush gave.

Ken, I think you're right...that was meant for me.

Spawn, all you have to believe is that the press were starting to ask all kinds of embarrassing questions about Harken, Halliburton, and Harvey Pitt's future in the summer of 2002, and that a change in the Big Story was preferable to all concerned. What, the Pentagon's thinking of attacking Iraq? If you remember, that suddenly became the news lead, even though we now know their information was still suspect. Believe it or not, it's easily as strong a case as all the wag-the-dog garbage we heard about Clinton back in the day.

Kevin, the point is that Bush was using exactly the same information that Clinton used to justify bombing Iraq, that the UN used to justify sanctions and endless resolutions on Iraq, that Scott Ritter used before he was paid off by Saddam. Even Hans Blix said he can't understand why Saddam acted as if he had the weapons if they didn't exist.

WMD were only one of several reasons given by Bush for finally backing up the UN resolutions and doing what the UN only threatened for years.

Keep saying it guys.

My parents are fundamentalist Christians living in Colo Springs (Christian town) and they are getting pretty pissed at the whole WMD thing.

Or are you forgetting that a huge portion of your base actually takes this lying stuff seriously?

I'm sure that everyone will be soooooo interested in who was right about the looting and whatever the hell you think Clinton did when the demand comes for an explanation about the total lack of WMDs.

My parents never ever took an excuse of the form "Well, they did the same thing!" or "Look what they did".

Childish handwaving and finger pointing will simply be laughed at by some very stern people who are not happy about this at all - and they aren't Democrats.

DS wrote: //For once in these people's lives they are free. No more staged rallies, no more polical executions, no more supressed information. Ancient treasure or freedom from oppresion.. I'll take freedom. It's up to them what they want.//

Except for the anti-American demonstrators being shot down by US soldiers.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=416478