[Destro]

For some reason FairOpinion is not connecting with my point:

Regarding the contradictions of the local Iraqi or American versions regarding the looting be it that the looting began before or after the arrival of American forces -- the following is not in doubt:

Like I wrote above - this statement alone They [U.S. forces] didn’t try to stop the looting, says Colonel Madere, because “there was no directive that said do not allow anyone in and out of this place.” should be enough to send heads rolling. Why no orders? Who was asleep at the wheel? This is gross negligence and incompetence on the part of the "directive" givers.

Therefore FairOpinion you must come to the following conclusions--if this was a WMD site (and you said it was in the strongest terms) and hence the fact that it was not secured until it was way too late makes that failure a gross violation of the President's mission statement and hence a gross failure on the part of the Defense Dept to carry out the goal of securing POTENTIAL WMD sites.

PS: Too bad I did not get a chance to read proudmary's statement. My loss I am sure.

[FairOpinion]

"the following is not in doubt:"

---

Actually everything is in doubt. There were similar definite statements made about the museum looting, most of them turned out to be incorrect to total fabrications.

We clearly don't have all the facts, none of us really know what exactly happened and when.

There were earlier stories that the Marines had secured Al Tuwaitha and were guarding it, then these looting stories.

The basic war is over, but the "fog of war" persists. It's pretty definite that there is/was nuclear material at Al Tuwaitha, other than that, there are conflicting stories.