It's a long article, but not especially helpful on details. Were specialized centrifuges used to purify Uranium looted, for instance? Or only valuable machinery, such as lathes, drill presses, and milling machines?
I presume the Times sees this looting as evidence that Bush was remiss.
But does it not also suggest that Saddam was working on Weapons of Mass Destruction, a point they have repeatedly claimed that Bush lied about?
Whatever nasty intentions the Times may have, I don't see this article as likely to do any damage. Another strike-out for the Times.
"I presume the Times sees this looting as evidence Bush was remiss."Wasn't looting at Iraqi bases brought up prior to Bush's re-election,with the inference being Bush,Rumsfeld,etc were somehow negligent in securing bases?I agree this probably won't do any damage.Sounds to me like the Times is getting desperate for an angle.