Posted on 05/28/2004 8:42:49 PM PDT by Objective Reality
Please pardon the vanity, but I've not seen this theory posited elsewhere in any searches I've performed.
First the admission from Michael Moore that he interviewed Nick Berg prior to his trip to Iraq. Why, in God's name, if Berg was just some foolhardy "mercenary" (as Moore calls Americans in Iraq in general)?
Then, with the slightest amount of further investigation, this post from Moore himself, on his own website. Note, very well, the date.
Quoting:
"I currently have two cameramen/reporters doing work for me in Iraq for my movie (unbeknownst to the Army). They are talking to soldiers and gathering the true sentiment about what is really going on."
Rather explains why Berg would have refused safe passage home from the military, doesn't it?
I therefore theorize that Michael Moore commissioned Nick Berg to act as his proxy / cameraman in Iraq with the stated goal of meeting and interviewing the "minutemen" of the "revolution," thereby directly leading Berg to his own murder, and making Moore himself more culpable than any member of the Bush administration in that murder.
If Moore has an interview with "pro-war-Bush-supporter" Berg, as is claimed, this should be very easy for him to deny.
Let him do so.
Something is wrong, wrong wrong. Like Nichols and Ramzi Yousef hanging out.
How much of this stuff is out there? Why isn't anyone really investigating?
What is added in the long version? Why is it longer?
It is clear that Berg was working for Moore. He took a lot of Moore's footage and turned up some really great stuff. Enough stuff for another two or three really, dramatic flicks. No, really!!
But Berg (and this is the part that the investigators will find; Moore has video tapes and taped calls and emails) wanted a much bigger cut, a share and not the salary that Moore hired him for. Moore had(has) the stuff in a can; Berg threatened and enlisted his family in Philadelphia. Moore saw an easy way out and dropped a dime on Berg.
Moore paid some Iraqi killers, folks he knew through his anti-American contacts in France, to kill Berg and take him out as a financial threat. The father would never accuse Moore if it meant missing a shot at Bush, so Moore is home free.
But, it just isn't right to out a celebrated movie hero and talk of his murder of Berg. As a movie legend, Moore deserves, well, more.
I have not had the courage to watch the Berg decapitation video (I saw the still images on Drudge's site), because I knew I couldn't bear the screams. If what you say is true, I suspect that they may have drugged Nick within an inch of his life so that he wouldn't struggle so much, and perhaps (mercifully), not feel so much pain. Either way, he died a horrible way, and we must not lose sight of that.
I never said Berg was a mercenary. I was paraphrasing Moore's general opinion of innocent Americans randomly murdered, burned, mutilated and hanged from bridges in Iraq. That general opinion being, bluntly, "f--- 'em." All except for Nick Berg, apparently, who gets special treatment from Moore. Like being interviewed by him. And having his interview kept from the public, and given only to his family.
2) Berg was PRO-WAR. His dad is anti-war, but Nick Berg was PRO-WAR. He supported the liberation of the Iraqi people. If he granted an interview to Michael Moore, it was probably only to share his idealism with a camera.
Not to be brusque, but what evidence is there of this? What written record of Nick Berg's longstanding status as a supporter of the Iraq war, and by extension, of George W. Bush? What checks to the Bush campaign committee? What FreeRepublic user name? What posts anywhere, what statements to close friends and colleagues? What statement other than that of his father, a certified signatory member of International A.N.S.W.E.R., who I have NO doubt would sell out his son's integrity in a heartbeat if he thought it would further his radical agenda? This is a man who described the men who slowly beheaded his son, while he shrieked and wept, as only being "maybe about as bad" as Bush and Rumsfeld. What kind of credibility is he to be afforded?
What evidence do I have, to the contrary? Very little, but it's a different standard to prove a negative. I point only to the circumstantial evidence of:
Who, other than Nick Berg's father, said he was PRO-WAR? Hmmm?
God...you're funny!
I am sure that, if this were true, Moore would be the first to disclose the facts. Yep.
Respectfully, a "ridiculous theory" would be those typically originating from the Left, e.g., "Bush ordered the World Trade Center destroyed so he could impose a fascist dictatorship and build a pipeline through Afghanistan." Prima facia absurdities that would require the complicity of literally thousands of bad actors within the government, without a single whistleblower.
As Franklin said: Three people can keep a secret, so long as two of them are dead.
Several thousand?
That aside, I don't think it ridiculous in the least to imagine a conspiracy amongst a handful of virulently anti-Bush A.N.S.W.E.R. types (Moore definitely included), with the means and the motivation, to engage in a risky operation in advance of their agenda, especially if it stood a chance of undermining the Bush administration.
I'm sure they never saw Berg's murder coming, because they are indeed that naive, but regardless: Never doubt for a moment that Moore and A.N.S.W.E.R. would gladly, in a heartbeat, exchange the slow beheading of every man and woman in a U.S. uniform in Iraq, for the guaranteed removal of George W. Bush from office. If Berg was their cameraman, then in their minds, he died in pursuit of a noble cause, Bush killed him anyway because it was the invasion that led to the murder, and his death won't be in vain, so long as he can be portrayed as an idiot Bush supporter who got what he had coming to him (as opposed to an A.N.S.W.E.R. member, about whom they would assume we would say the same thing - although we wouldn't), and thereby, help end the Bush Presidency.
If this is the case, and I believe it very well may be, the entire Moore charade is about to collapse like the house of cards it has always been. It would be the end of his career as a documentarian. Not only would he have orchestrated a fantastically ill-advised scheme that led to the brutal murder of a naive kid, but he and his cronies - including the boy's own father - engaged in the most shameful assortment of lies and coverups ever foisted upon the American public.
Again: Moore has ample capacity to prove this not to be the case. He need only release this interview. And one way or another, he is going to do so - either willingly, or under subpoena in a federal investigation of a felony murder.
This was my impression after first viewing the film. No less horrorific, to be sure. But IMO Berg was probably duped by his "captors". IMO too, despite earlier "reports", the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree. Just check out dear old Dad's "statements". It's all too convenient.
Plausible, I must admit. ....which is a helluva lot more than I can say about the other conspiracy theories I've read on the subject.
My GOD, Registered - is that an actual photograph, or a photoshop? If that's real, it should be leading a newscast, and My God, My God Almighty.
Time to FReep Moore...he will be out and about making appearances. Everyone needs to grab their camcorder and create some "Documentary Producer" badges and visit Mikey at his book signings and movie promotions. He hasn't posted a new "post-Cannes" appearance schedule yet, but when he does we should all jump on it!
The Guardian, for one:
A sense of adventure carried him to Iraq. Unlike his father, who was a member of an anti-war group, Berg believed in America's project in Iraq and wanted to be a part of it, as well as make money.Can you show me a single source claiming Berg was anti-war? If he was so anti-war, why hasn't Moore released the interview footage? We're talking about Michael Moore, the guy who left a photo of Kayla Rollins at Charleton Heston's place. It's not like he has any decency.
Only the subject matter is real OR.
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.