[swilhelm73]

Hmm...

Well one can se fairly sure that the interview with Nick Berg isn't something Moore thinks he can use to push his agenda or it would be in the film.

[Bogey78O]

My gut reaction agrees.

[Aquinasfan]

Well one can se fairly sure that the interview with Nick Berg isn't something Moore thinks he can use to push his agenda or it would be in the film.

That's a pretty safe assumption.

[mass55th]

This is all a little beyond bizarre. First Berg is associated with Moussaoui and he somehow ends up in Iraq with anti-semitic material and the Koran in his possession. Then he's amazingly picked from millions of people in this country, to be interviewed by Michael Moore sometime before he heads overseas? People used to think the coinky dinks in Clinton's scandals were outrageous, but this is enough to raise even the eyebrows of the left.

[Mannaggia l'America]

Well one can se fairly sure that the interview with Nick Berg isn't something Moore thinks he can use to push his agenda or it would be in the film

Or it doesn't really exist... (just something else to try to hype the film, like the lie about Disney not wanting to distribute it.)

[Osage Orange]

You wrote:

"Hmm...

Well one can se fairly sure that the interview with Nick Berg isn't something Moore thinks he can use to push his agenda or it would be in the film."

[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[

BINGO..!!

[Rebelbase]

"Well one can se fairly sure that the interview with Nick Berg isn't something Moore thinks he can use to push his agenda or it would be in the film."

The film was completed before Berg came into the news.

[ladyinred]

Or at the risk of being attacked here, is he covering for him on his views about Bush and the war? It seems to me that Moore wouldn't have interviewed him had he been favorable to Bush or the war. Hmmm.

[Wolfstar]

Could be Moore wants to suppress the Berg footage, not because of anything Nick says, but because Moore wants to hide his own acquaintance with Nick.