Robert Fulford agrees with Cuno

Robert Fulford agrees with James Cuno in the National Post. " The best place for 'looted' artifacts? Right where they are". According to Fulford, to question the accession policies of "major museums" can be dismissed as a comfortable amalgamation of "ideology, politics and bone-headed provincialism". I do not understand why Fulford puts the word "looted" in inverted commas. Does this mean that the Canadian journalist denies that there are objects on the market which are looted? If so, I wonder how much 'investigative journalism' lies behind that claim?

[Here he is playing down the scale of the Baghdad Museum looting: These days, no news can ever be good news, The National Post, 27 September 2003 - where he says the losses from the museum were "3000" and then "33" items: later stocktaking by Matthew Bogdanos and his men revealed that the actual number was something like 13140 objects taken, of which most of the smaller items have still not been recovered].