|
By Cynthia Annett | April 19, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
How can the Bush administration possibly claim to be "surprised" by the
looting in Baghdad? ("Baghdad's priceless literary treasures reduced to
ash," J-W, April 16) After destroying the communications
infrastructure, knocking out power and taking out the police force, how
can the administration possibly expect us to believe it hadn't been
able to anticipate there would be looting?
Anyone who has been in a major American city during a power failure
would have known what was going to happen. There is no reason to
believe it would be any different in Baghdad than in Chicago or Los
Angeles.
The administration claiming to be "surprised" is absurd. Leaving the
National Library in Baghdad unguarded makes no more sense than leaving
our National Archives unguarded, which they wouldn't do. In fact, in
recent months, they have increased security at our national museums and
libraries; they didn't decrease it.
Allowing the destruction of Iraq's National Library is an unforgivable
crime and the fault lies with the Bush administration. I cringe to
think they could actually be willing to stand by and allow the
destruction of the shared culture of all humanity. Doesn't the
administration value the world's cultural treasures? Or are they so
incompetent they did not anticipate and plan for something that is a
normal response of a population subjected to the violent destruction of
its infrastructure? In either case, it calls into question whether this
administration is fit to govern any country, ours included.
|
Originally published by the Lawrence Journal-World.
|
|
|