KEN LAYNE has a post indicating that the substantial looting from Baghdad's National Museum was maybe 25 pieces. When I first heard the story, I was alarmed and, quite naturally, felt that America might have some responsibility. On further reflection, I tentatively suggested that the evidence wasn't in and that it could well have been the case that it was an inside job by Baathists or Museum employees. It looks like that tentative suggestion might have merit.

But, really, why was it that we all jump to the conclusion of American culpability? It really was a ridiculous proposition. Bombs were being dropped, for Heaven's sake. Was it really unreasonable to believe that the curators would have, or should have, moved their treasures to a secure location? Didn't the fact that it appeared that they had taken no security measures, according to their account, sound suspicious? I know that when a restaurant burns down in Fresno, I start wondering about whether the restaurant was losing money and if it had insurance.

But we all initially accepted the looting story without exercising our critical facilities. Why is that? Well, to extend extend an observation made by Robert Heinlein in Glory Road, at least four decades of the media, academia and certain prominent Americans beating the drum that America's motives or interests or illegitimate or immoral are bound to have some effect.