Posted on 05/14/2004 12:07:59 PM PDT by NotchJohnson
There is just no imaginable way to understand the grief of Michael Berg. His 26-year-old son was brutally murdered -- his head sawed off -- by Islamic monsters, and the whole thing was videotaped and not appears on the internet for all the world to see. Michael Berg is and was against the war in Iraq, and, by all accounts, has never been a fan of George Bush. Nick Berg, on the other hand, was a supporter of George Bush and the war effort.
From the very time Nick Berg's body was found on a roadside in Iraq, Michael Berg has been making statements blaming the Bush administration for his son's fate. Now Michael Berg is telling the world that his son "died for the sins of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld."
Sins? Does Michael Berg mean the sin of liberating over 10 million Iraqis from the brutality of Saddam Hussein? Saddam had rape rooms. In these rooms people weren't stripped naked and arranged in piles. They were raped, they were electrocuted, and they were murdered .. and no small number of them suffered deaths unlike that suffered by Nick Berg. Or maybe Michael Berg is talking about the sin of making sure that Saddam would never again use biological or chemical weapons against his own people, Iranians or anyone else, and that he would never succeed in his long-term goal of developing nuclear weapons. Perhaps Berg is referring to the sin of making sure that Saddam is never again capable of launching missiles into civilian areas Tel Aviv.
Quite a sinful guy, this George Bush. He stepped in where much of the rest of the world would not. He stepped in where the much-vaunted United Nations would not. He removed one of history's bloodiest dictators from power, and quite possibly saved the lives of untold thousands of people -- maybe tens of thousands of Americans or Israelis -- who were destined to become the victims of a terrorist attack with weapons too horrible to imagine; weapons supplied by Saddam Hussein.
After a decade of inaction by the United Nations ... which actually par for the course for the United Nations ... and in the face of the reluctance of our European "allies" to do anything (after all, they were getting big bucks from Saddam), George Bush acted. After 9/11 he was determined that no rogue nation, no nation that cooperated with terrorists, was going to be permitted to produce chemical, biological or nuclear weapons that could make their way into the hands of Islamic Jihadists. A bold policy? You bet. And thank God we had a president who was strong enough to take that stand.
Look ... there were only two ways to go here. Ignore Saddam, and let him continue with whatever his plans were. Maybe he would behave. But, again, maybe not. We would be taking that chance. We would be betting the lives of tens of thousands of Americans on the idea that Saddam wasn't going to proceed with his weapons plans, and wasn't going to continue his flirtation and cooperation with terrorists. Or .. the second choice .. we could remove the potential threat by removing Saddam from power. The world community gave him every opportunity to cooperate -- to play nice. He refused. Now he's gone. It took guts. Bush had guts.
As for Michael Berg. The last time I checked, Mr. Berg, the evidence was that your son traveled to Iraq on his one ... looking for work. He wasn't drafted. He wasn't conscripted. He wasn't forced. He made the decision, and unfortunately paid with his life. There are Islamic terrorists throughout the world, Mr. Berg. Your son could have gone to the Philippines instead of Iraq. Islamic terrorists have decapitated Americans there, too. Would you have also blamed that on Bush and Rumsfeld?
Wouldn't it be a travesty if Michael Berg were using the death of his son as an excuse to assign blame to a president he hasn't liked from the beginning? For now, we'll just chalk it up to grief. A few more words out of Michael Berg and we're going to start thinking otherwise.
He signed off late afternoon and said he wouldn't be back till Monday. That's the third freeper I've noticed in the last couple of weeks who keep normal business hours. They're either cheating their employer out of a days work (every day) or this is thier work.
I think Mr. Berg misses the big point. These Muslims in Iraq (or even Afghanistan)...simply DO NOT want westerners in their country period...even those selling something (Berg Jr was on their hit list period, even without the US military there, or with GW in the White House). Western life, culture, technology...are all enemies of the state of Islam. Mr. Berg needs to review the Muslim religion and get his perception in order. Berg Jr walked into a sales area that was loaded with death...and he wasn't carrying a weapon to defend himself. He assumed Muslims were loving of life and would never harm a fly. Did he not watch the twin towers collapse? Did he not understand how far the Muslim cult has drifted? Life will go on for Berg Sr....but he will likely sit in a lazyboy recliner lamenting about how GW killed his boy...and drink to ease his pain.
Daddy Berg should head over to Mosul and seek out his brother-in-law to help clear up exactly what happened. He can denounce Dubyah from over there, where he belongs, with his relatives.
And stupid must be pointed out and made right.
G'nite all.
Better days do lie ahead!
You and I share the same thought pattern on this one.
Of course I too am angered and and sickened by what what was done to him by the "TROGLODITE Islamsick Extremist", but the situation he placed himself in is just so strange.
I have been stumped as to how any one in there right mind could even seriously consider traveling alone, unarmed and unprotected, as a civilian American in Iraq at this time in history.
The more I hear about this young man, his life experiences, and the situation he seems to have placed himself in, the stranger and more perverse the whole story becomes!
I am left wondering if the total lack of common sense displayed by Nick Berg, for just being there in the first place, could be viewed as evidence of a genetic disorder that appears to be past from the father's side of the gene pool?
In following this horrible story,it appears that we are witnessing evidence that a genetic predisposition to Liberalism is possible, and that the outcome of following such tendencies is always destructive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.