Michael Smerconish | BUSH DIDN'T KILL NICK

(Philly) The Daily News ^ | May 17, 2004 | Michael Smerconish

[hobson]

I agree. The good news is these people are showing America just how extreme they really are.

[zook]

"But I will never ever understand why they trust known terrorisst more then their own country"

This is a hallmark of fear.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Blaming Amreica. It is not just Mr. Berg. Nothing new in liberalism after all. The Vietnam War era and today are just spikes of the usual "excuse the enemy, attack America" rhetoric. (Hmmm. Why was W.W. II different? Ah! America was helping to defend Uncle Joe's workers' paradise from Hitler!) How could a nation this divided (again!) survive I wondered? Then I remembered.

Liberals demanded that Republicans apologize to the Soviets for the U-2 flights at the same time they were "complaining" about a phony "missile gap" in 1960.

In the 1964 election liberal charges that opponents were racist hate mongers and warmongers became regular features on the powerful new medium of TV network "news." That medium has never generally been available to opponents of liberals.

An ad remained on TV as a "news" item after Democrats pulled it. The ad showing a little girl vaporized by a Soviet nuke charged that Goldwater killed the little girl because his policies provoked the Soviet "hard-liners." Goldwater was the warmonger. The Communists were innocents.

President Bush is the warmonger. Except for a hand full of criminals radical Muslims are innocents. "Bush is doing the killing including Mr. Berg," say many liberals. Nothing new.

There are clear signs that the liberals' emotion is now out of control. Karenna Gore revealed that her father stopped Party efforts to provoke race riots during the Florida election dispute. Will there be an Al Gore to stop death and destruction this time? I won't bet on it. Hmmm. Back to wondering how could a nation this divided go much longer without something breaking?

[TET1968]

"Along with Al Quaeda, Michael Berg needs to blame his own son for his death. If I see a sign on a fence that says [Guard Dogs On Duty] & I choose to go in anyway, are the dogs totally to blame for my death?"


This is a little metaphor.
Scenario A: You have a Doberman, named Otto.He hates strangers. He hangs out in your front yard. One day, a stranger, jumps the fence so Otto resdesigns the guy's wardrobe. The stranger sues you.

Scenario B. You have a 4 pound female yorkie puppy, named Angel. She hangs out in your front yard. To protect yourself, you post a sign on the fence that reads,
"Beware of Dog".One day, a stranger, jumps the fence and Angel destroys his shoelaces. The stranger , has an accident in his pants and sues.

Which stranger wins the law suit?



Answer. By posting the sign "Beware of Dog", you have admitted you know the four pound sock puppet is dangerous, therefore you are responsible for not securing the attack puppy.

[alnick]

Michael Berg's contention that the murderers, who sawed off his son's head, 'might be as bad as George Bush' was just disgusting.

He said that? I wonder if, in his grief, he understands that he might as well have said that he'd prefer his son to be beheaded than to have GWB as president.

[Ditter]

Note to self: Make sure next time that it is clear that you are not really talking about dogs. ;9)

[sr4402]

Saw another article on Freep where Nick ignored warnings. He wanted to be there himself. The liberal press activism is very appearent here.

[Badray]

" I have a question for Michael Berg ... why does he trust known terrorists then he does his own country?"

I can't help but think that Michael Berg is no better than the Palestinian father of a young suicide bomber using his son's death for political purposes.

[Wolfstar]

But I will never ever understand why they trust known terrorists more then their own country.

The answer is really astoundingly simple: The Left and the jihadists have a near-term common political goal, which is to eliminate the United States as a superpower. Why? They both want to dominate the world. Should they somehow achieve this particular goal, they would then be at each other's throats, because the jihadists are motivated by religion while the Left is motivated by belief in secular Marxist socialism.

In the long run, the joke is on the Left. Why? The existence of a relatively benign, benevolent superpower like the United States actually provides the security, political and social climate in which utopian Leftism can survive and continue to flourish. Conversely, under George W. Bush, the United States is actively attempting to push back, if not dismantle the jihadist movement. If we were to be stopped or defeated in that attempt, jihadism would sweep the world. The weak, "can't we all get along" Leftists like Michael Berg would be among the first swallowed up — as we have seen by the example of what happened to his son when Nick went out to try to change the world armed with nothing more than Leftist ideals.

[RonDog]

From www.mastalk.com:

Daily News Article about Nick Berg



Posted on Mon, May. 17, 2004
Click Here to see the article published on the web

Michael Smerconish | BUSH DIDN'T KILL NICK

HATE MONGERING FANATICS WITH A SICK NEED TO KILL TOOK HIS LIFE

By Michael Smerconish

THIS ISN'T going to be easy. But some things need to be said to Michael Berg even as he grieves the loss of his son. It would have been more appropriate to let the dust settle before this discourse began, but that is no longer an option where he has turned this tragedy into a morbid blame game.
First and foremost, civilized people everywhere mourn for your family. Nick Berg was, by all accounts, a fine son - smart, ambitious and with an independent spirit for life. Twenty-six is way too young to die. No father should have to endure what you must be going through.

But...

George Bush did not kill your son. Nor did Donald Rumsfeld. And, quite frankly, you are the one politicizing his death when you introduce their names into the same breath as his obituary.

Furthermore, it's just not accurate for you to say "Nicholas Berg died for the sins of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld." Your son died due to the sins of unholy people acting through some misguided and irrational vision of their faith. And, frankly, you give your son's murderers the credibility they so desperately lack when you say otherwise...

CLICK HERE for the rest of that article