Michael Berg Disgraces Son

I would give the guy some latitude. I know he was anti-war before this happened. That is for sure.

But to have your kid brutally killed in front of most of the world (America being a distinct exception) has to instill some form of temporary insanity.

If he's still blowing the same horn a few months to a year from now, then your assessment of him would be spot on.

Great blog.

Second the motion. For those of us who have opposed the war from the outset, or even those who just realized lately that they've been used, Bush & Co. _do_ have a lot to answer for.

But leave that aside. When you have a child, and that child is brutally murdered, and you then demonstrate that you can maintain the kind of equanimity you seem to think Berg's father should be showing here, I'll be willing to give your remarks more weight. Under the current circumstances, though, to me at least, you just sound like you don't know what you're talking about.

JC: There's a perfectly valid target for Mr. Berg's anger: the terrorists who killed his son. Blaming President Bush is no more just than blaming me or you. I didn't say I'm mad at the guy or anything, I said that he's insulting his own son by misplacing the blame, which he is.

There are two schools of thought on what people do when they're under duress. One says that what people do when they're not under duress is indicative of their true character; stress just makes them go nuts. The other says that what people do when the chips are down is more indicative of their true character, since they can no longer spare the mental energy to keep up any pretenses.

If you subscribe to the first theory, then you probably believe that Mr. Berg is just casting about and will later come around. If you subscribe to the second, you probably believe that Mr. Berg is displaying a true lack of character.

Why blame Bush instead of the terrorists? Because Bush will respond. He'll say "I'm sorry for his loss. We have to continue." And Michael will have someone to battle with. The terrorists have killed Nick and moved on to the next plan.

I think that's at least part of why many people blame our government.

Bush -- and the wind beneath his wings (Cheney)-- took us into this 'elective' "war." BUT for the fact that they are mega-maniacal ideologes Berg and the other 700 - and counting - Americans would be alive. Before you utter even one moreer anti-MichaelBerg criticism, picture your fully conscious son, daughter, wife, parents having his / her head SAWED off. This was not a French guillotine or even a samurai sword. This was not a quick "lop" of his head. This was barbarism! Yeah, S. H.is gone. Great. But at what cost? It's been lie after lie from the beginning. Bush has LOTS of blood on his hands. May "Bush's God" (ha)have mercy on the Berg family and help them thru this horror.

I disagree with these comments. Think about this; it seems real strange that the hooded murders all seem to be standing in US military positions, except for their hands, which they don't seem to know what to do with them.

Nancy,
No offense, but were you in the US military? How do you know they were US military positions? Because they looked exactly like what you saw in some movie or tv show?
I haven't been in the military, but I'm pretty sure that being in the proper military stance includes knowing what to do with your hands.

Nicolas Berg went to Iraq of his own free will to contribute yes, but completely unprotected. He did not die for the sins of anybody. He voluntarily put himself in a dangerous situation and then didn't leave when he had the opportunity to do so. Not to say that his death is of his own doing, it is horrible what happened to him. But how could he not know the danger of his location?

I can't even imagine what it must be like to go through what the Berg family has expirienced, but it is pathetic and inaccurate to blame his death on the "sins" of our President.

THE WORLD SITUATION  *  A LETTER TO MY SONS
> >  
> > This was written by a retired attorney, to his sons,
> May 19, 2004.
> >  
> > Dear Tom, Kevin, Kirby and Ted,
> >  
> > As your father, I believe I owe it to you to share some
> thoughts on
> > the present world situation.  We have over the years
> discussed a lot of
> > important things, like going to college, jobs and so
> forth.  But this
> > really takes precedence over any of those discussions.
> I hope this
> > might
> > give you a longer term perspective that fewer and fewer
> of my
> > generation
> > are left to speak to.  To be sure you understand that
> this is not
> > politically flavored, I will tell you that since
> Franklin D. Roosevelt,
> > who led us through pre and WWII (1933 - 1945) up to and
> including our
> > present President, I have without exception, supported
> our presidents
> > on
> > all matters of international conflict.  This would
> include just naming
> > a
> > few in addition to President Roosevelt - WWII:
> President Truman -
> > Korean
> > War 1950;  President Kennedy - Bay of Pigs (1961);
> President Kennedy -
> > Vietnam (1961); [1]  eight presidents (5 Republican & 4
> Democrat)
> > during the cold war (1945 - 1991);  President Clinton's
> strikes
> > on Bosnia (1995) and on Iraq (1998). [2]  So be sure
> you read this as
> > completely non-political or otherwise you will miss the
> point.
> >  
> >    Our country is now facing the most serious threat to
> its existence,
> > as
> > we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and
> mine (which
> > includes
> > WWII).  The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by
> the fact that
> > there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose
> this war and
> > even
> > fewer who realize what losing really means.
> >  
> >    First, let's examine a few basics:
> >  
> > 1.  When did the threat to us start?
> > Many will say September 11th, 2001.  The answer as far
> as the United
> > States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to
> September 2001, with the
> > following attacks on us:  Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
> Beirut, Lebanon
> > Embassy 1983;  Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
> Lockerbie,
> > Scotland
> > Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;  First New York World
> Trade Center
> > attack
> > 1993;  Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military
> complex 1996;
> > Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;  Dar es Salaam,
> Tanzania US Embassy
> > 1998; Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;  New York World Trade
> Center 2001;
> > Pentagon 2001.  (Note that during the period from 1981
> to 2001 there
> > were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide). [3]
> >  
> > 2.  Why were we attacked?
> > Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms.
> The attacks
> > happened during the administrations of Presidents
> Carter, Reagan, Bush
> > 1,
> > Clinton and Bush 2.  We can not fault either the
> Republicans or
> > Democrats
> > as there were no provocations by any of the presidents
> or their
> > immediate
> > predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
> >  
> > 4.  Who were the attackers?
> > In each case of attacks on US they were Muslims.
> >  
> > 5.  What is the Muslim population of the World?
> > 25%
> >  
> > 6.  Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
> > Hopefully, but that is really not material.  There is
> no doubt that the
> > predominately Christian population of Germany was
> peaceful, but under
> > the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also
> Christian), that
> > made
> > no difference.  You either went along with the
> administration or you
> > were
> > eliminated.  There were 5 to 6 million Christians
> killed by the Nazis
> > for
> > political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests).
> > ( http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm ).  Thus,
> almost the same
> > number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the 6
> million
> > holocaust
> > Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of
> anything other
> > than the Jewish atrocities.  Although Hitler kept the
> world focused on
> > the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who
> got in his way
> > of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world -
> German,
> > Christian
> > or any others.  Same with the Muslim terrorists.  They
> focus the world
> > on the US, but kill all in the way - their own people
> or the Spanish,
> > French or anyone else.. [5]  The point here is that
> just like the
> > peaceful
> > Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis,
> no matter how
> > many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no
> protection for us from
> > the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are
> fanatically bent on
> > doing
> > - by their own pronouncements - killing all of us
> infidels.  I don't
> > blame
> > the peaceful Muslims.  What would you do if the choice
> was shut up or
> > die?
> >  
> > 6.  So who are we at war with?
> > There is no way we can honestly respond that it is
> anyone other than
> > the Muslim terrorists.  Trying to be politically
> correct and avoid
> > verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal.  There
> is no way to win
> > if
> > you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are
> fighting.
> >  
> > So with that background, now to the two major
> questions:
> > 1.  Can we lose this war?
> >  
> > 2.  What does losing really mean?
> >  
> > If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two
> pivotal questions.
> > We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it
> may sound,
> > the major reason we can lose is that so many of us
> simply do not
> > fathom the answer to the second question - 'What does
> losing mean?'
> > It would appear that a great many of us think that
> losing the war means
> > hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going
> on about our
> > business, like post Vietnam.  This is as far from the
> truth as one can
> > get.  What losing really means is:
> >  
> > --We would no longer be the premier country in the
> world.
> >  
> > --The attacks will not subside, but rather will
> steadily increase.
> > Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet.  If they
> had just wanted
> > us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing
> series of attacks
> > against us over the past 18 years.  The plan was
> clearly to terrorist
> > attack us until we were neutered and submissive to
> them.
> >  
> > --We would of course have no future support from other
> nations for fear
> > of reprisals and for the reason that they would see we
> are impotent and
> > cannot help them.
> >  
> > --They will pick off the other non Muslim nations, one
> at a time.  It
> > will be increasingly easier for them.  They already
> hold Spain hostage.
> > It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for
> Spain to withdraw
> > its
> > troops from Iraq.  Spain did it because the Muslim
> terrorists bombed
> > their train and told them to withdraw the troops.
> Anything else they
> > want Spain to do, will be done.  Spain is finished.
> >  
> > --The next will probably be France.  Our one hope on
> France is that
> > they
> > might see the light and realize that if we don't win,
> they are finished
> > too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists
> without us.
> > However, it may already be too late for France.  France
> is already 20%
> > Muslim and fading fast.  See the attached article on
> the French
> > condition
> > by Tom Segel. [6]
> >  
> > --If we lose the war, our production, income, exports
> and way of life
> > will all vanish as we know it.  After losing, who would
> trade or deal
> > with us if they were threatened by the Muslims.  If we
> can't stop the
> > Muslims, how could anyone else?  The Muslims fully know
> what is
> > riding on this war and therefore are completely
> committed to winning
> > at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise
> committed to
> > winning at any cost.
> >  
> > Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of
> losing?
> > Simple.  Until we recognize the costs of losing, we
> cannot unite and
> > really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into
> winning.  And it is
> > going to take that 100% effort to win.
> >  
> > So, how can we lose the war?
> > Again, the answer is simple.  We can lose the war by
> imploding.  That
> > is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the
> enemy and their
> > purpose and really digging in and lending full support
> to the war
> > effort.
> > If we are united, there is no way that we can lose.  If
> we continue to
> > be divided, there is no way that we can win.
> >  
> > Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't
> comprehend
> > the life and death seriousness of this situation.
> >  
> > * President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of
> Transportation.
> > Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by
> Muslim men
> > between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta
> refuses to allow
> > profiling.  Does that sound like we are taking this
> thing seriously?
> > This is war.  For the duration we are going to have to
> give up some of
> > the civil rights we have become accustomed to.  We had
> better be
> > prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily
> or we will most
> > certainly lose all of them permanently.  And don't
> worry that it is a
> > slippery slope.  We gave up plenty of civil rights
> during WWII and
> > immediately restored them after the victory and in fact
> added many
> > more since then. Do I blame President Bush or President
> Clinton
> > before him?  No, I blame us for blithely assuming we
> can maintain
> > all of our Political Correctness and all of our civil
> rights during
> > this
> > conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war.  None
> of those words
> > apply to war.  Get them out of your head.
> >  
> > * Some of us have gone so far out in our criticism of
> the war and/or
> > our
> > Administration that it almost seems they would
> literally like to see us
> > lose.  I hasten to add that this isn't because they are
> disloyal.  It
> > is
> > because they just don't recognize what losing means.
> Nevertheless,
> > that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we
> are divided
> > and weakening, it concerns our friends, and it does
> great damage to
> > our cause.
> >  
> > * Of more recent vintage, the uproar fuelled by the
> politicians and
> > media, regarding the treatment of some prisoners of
> war, perhaps
> > exemplifies best what I am saying.  We have recently
> had an issue
> > involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of
> war by a small
> > group
> > of our military police.  These are the type prisoners
> who just a few
> > months ago were throwing their own people off
> buildings, cutting off
> > their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise
> murdering their
> > own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.
> And just a few
> > years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed
> 400,000 of their
> > own people for the same reason.  They are also the same
> type enemy
> > fighters who recently were burning Americans and
> dragging their charred
> > corpses through the streets of Iraq.  And still more
> recently the same
> > type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news
> sources
> > internationally, of the beheading of an American
> prisoner they held.
> > Compare this with some of our press and politicians who
> for several
> > days
> > have thought and talked about nothing else but the
> "humiliating" of
> > some
> > Muslim prisoners - not burning them, not dragging their
> charred corpses
> > through the streets, not beheading them, but
> "humiliating" them.  Can
> > this
> > be for real?  The politicians and pundits have even
> talked of
> > impeachment
> > of the Secretary of Defense.  If this doesn't show the
> complete lack of
> > comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of
> the enemy we
> > are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and
> the disastrous
> > results of losing this war, nothing can.
> >  
> > To bring our country to a virtual political standstill
> over this
> > prisoner
> > issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as
> Rome burned
> > - totally oblivious to what is going on in the real
> world.  Neither we,
> > nor any other country, can survive this internal
> strife.  Again I say,
> > this does not mean that some of our politicians or
> media people are
> > disloyal.  It simply means that they absolutely
> oblivious to the
> > magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the
> Muslim
> > terrorists have been pushing us for many years.
> Remember, the
> > Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels.
> That translates
> > into all non-Muslims - not just in the United States,
> but throughout
> > the world.  We are the last bastion of defense.
> >  
> > We have been criticized for many years as being
> 'arrogant'.  That
> > charge is valid in at least one respect.  We are
> arrogant in that we
> > believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that
> we can win
> > the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and
> that with both
> > hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad
> in the world.
> > We can't.  If we don't recognize this, our nation as we
> know it will
> > not
> > survive, and no other free country in the World will
> survive if we are
> > defeated. And finally, name any Muslim countries
> throughout the
> > world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought,
> freedom of
> > religion, freedom of the Press, equal rights for anyone
> - let alone
> > everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that
> have been
> > productive in one single way that contributes to the
> good of the World.
> >  
> > This has been a long way of saying that we must be
> united on this war
> > or we will be equated in the history books to the
> self-inflicted fall
> > of
> > the Roman Empire.  If, that is, the Muslim leaders will
> allow history
> > books to be written or read.
> >  
> > If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on
> how the
> > Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less.
> They will
> > continue to increase the Muslim population of France
> and continue
> > to encroach little by little on the established French
> traditions.  The
> > French will be fighting among themselves over what
> should or should
> > not be done, which will continue to weaken them and
> keep them from
> > any united resolve.  Doesn't that sound eerily
> familiar?
> >  
> > Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from
> them by
> > some external military force.  Instead, they give their
> freedoms away,
> > politically correct piece by politically correct
> piece.  And they are
> > giving those freedoms away to those who have shown,
> worldwide, that
> > they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even
> to themselves,
> > once they are in power.  They have universally shown
> that when they
> > have taken over, they then start brutally killing each
> other over who
> > will be the few who control the masses.  Will we ever
> stop hearing
> > from the politically correct, about the "peaceful
> Muslims"?
> >  
> > I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said
> above.  If we are
> > united, there is no way that we can lose.  I believe
> that after the
> > election, the factions in our country will begin to
> focus on the
> > critical
> > situation we are in and will unite to save our
> country.  It is your
> > future we are talking about.  Do whatever you can to
> preserve it.
> >  
> > Love,
> > Dad
> >  
> > [1]  By the way on Vietnam, the emotions are still so
> high that it is
> > really not possible to discuss it.  However, I think
> President Kennedy
> > was correct.  He felt there was a communist threat from
> China,
> > Russia and North Vietnam to take over that whole area.
> Also
> > remember that we were in a 'cold war' with Russia.  I
> frankly think
> > Kennedy's plan worked and kept that total communist
> control out,
> > but try telling that to anyone now.  It just isn't
> politically correct
> > to
> > say so.  Historians will answer this after cool headed
> research,
> > when the people closest to it are all gone.
> >  
> > [2] As you know, I am a strong President Bush supporter
> and will vote
> > for
> > him.  However, if Senator Kerry is elected, I will
> fully support him on
> > all matters of international conflict, just as I have
> supported all
> > presidents in the past.
> >  
> > [3]  Source for statistics in Par. 1 is
> > http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html .
> >  
> > [4]  The Institute of Islamic Information and
> Education.
> >  http://www.iiie.net/Intl/PopStats.html
> >  
> > [5]  Note the attached article by Tom Segel referred to
> in Footnote 6
> > infra, the terrorist Muslim have already begun the
> havoc in France.
> > (The
> > note was not attached to the e-mail I received.)
> >  
> > [6]  I checked this article with two sources - Hoax
> Busters and Urban
> > Myths.  It does not come up as a Hoax on either.  I
> also then e-mailed
> > Mr. Segel and he confirmed the article was his.
> >  
> > [7]  "I don't think the Army or any branch of service
> runs any type of
> > war any more.  It's done now by senators and
> congressmen.  There are
> > too many civilians involved."  Returning Iraq veteran,
> Sgt. 1st Class
> > Greg Klees as quoted in the Cedar Rapids, IA Gazette on
> May 13th, 2004.
> >  
> > [8]  There are 64 Muslim countries.  This does not
> count countries like
> > Spain that are controlled by the Muslim terrorists.

I can't believe that Michael Berg is such a hypocrite! The reason we're over there is because of his people, his ethnic background (Jewish)!!!!!!!! The only reason we are in this war is because of Israel and those people, most of them from Hollywood and other morons like Mr. Berg that come from Jewish heritage! It makes me sick to my stomach that they criticize us and President Bush. We should draft all of them and send them over there to protect their country, I bet they would shut up then! I'm outraged by his comments. Our military warned everyone to get out of Iraq because there are no guarantees for their safety. Those who choose to stay such as Mr. Berg's son obviously are greedy people wanting to make that money $$$$$. All they see is the big $$$$$$ sign. I ask is this President Bush's fault or anyone else??? I think not. These are grown adults who took it upon themselves to stay in Iraq and unfortunately they chose the wrong path. I pray that Mr. Berg will find solace in this and stop pointing his finger at his son's mistake. He made the decision to stay and his life was the consequence

That's a nice bit of anti-semitism there. Good to know there are still hateful Americans that want to do away the Jews.

Anyone that has watched the full video of Nick Berg should be ashamed of not just Bush & Co., but of global politics and how the U.S. has lost site of being a global power. The end of that video should be enough for most people to wish our soldiers home....and the civies too.

To Rober Davis, A giant BRAVO goes to you. Your comments and explaination to your children should be read by all. To Michael Berg, shame goes to you. You whine about 11,000 killed in this war to free a nation while up to 1,000,000 died under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. These parents did not suffer as you have? You are self centered and pathethic. You owe the people who's children have died freeing these people and the citizens of Iraq an apology. Try blaming the nature of mankind and the existence of goverment itself instead George Bush. Clinton, Gore or Kerry would have not have done any better or worse. Ask yourself, what would have YOU have done if you watched the nation you were President of attacked in such a vicious manner? Appease them? I think it is important to look at all the nations that are now fighting muslim extremist who are trying to establish muslim countries within other established countries to understand why we are at war. If you think it cannot happen here you are wrong and you should be asking yourself if you enjoy looking at your wife and daughters through a veil.

Say it again...Michael Berg is a traitor. Any child who dies after this rant will have been at the hand of this moron. I am sorry for his loss. Blame the murderers, not Bush.

First off, Nancy - you are as loony as an outhouse rat to even suggest that our military, for whatever sick & sadistic reason would be responsible for this. As former Marine, I take GREAT offense to that.

Secondly, I sure am glad that all of you out there criticizing our President and his staff have ALL of the information and intelligence that they have - I sure don't. We have no idea of the many things and agenda that the President has to think about on a daily basis. He makes his decisions on the best intelligence he has. We criticize the military and curse the President. We need to, as a nation, wake up and realize that WE were the ones attacked. WE were the ones that lost many lives on 9/11. I firmly believe that what we are doing is right and in twenty years, we will look back and say that even though we lost American lives, a WHOLE country is free.

As for you Michael Berg, your son was his own man. I am sure that he knew that the area he was going into was dangerous. You Sir, with all due respect, are an angry bitter man and you are just venting your anger in the wrong direct.

God bless,

Just to say that Mr. Berg is pissed because of his son being lost during war in a war zone and wants to blame someone other than his own son who went there voluntarily. He blames the war on Bush and the crew, when the blame should be put on the terrorists that exist there. If we didn't go there, they would come here "AGAIN". Do you Democrats not see or understand that they want to kill you whether you are Muslim/Arab or not. They are holding a Muslim/Arab at this time, threating him with his life just as they did Mr. Berg's son. It does not matter! If you are American, your life ain't crap and you should die, is exactly the thought of those coward murderers who want to kill you too. But you stupid people who oppose the Bush, are blaming Bush when Clinton had the opportunity to resolve this matter years ago. Maybe he wouldn't have lost his head. This is war against our livelyhood, and if we don't defend ourselves, you will be living in the same world they live in, according to the Quran!

All: Welcome to the site. Can anyone tell me how you found this post from six weeks ago? It's gotten more comments in the past hour than it had for those whole six weeks.

K.C......Wake up honey and smell the coffee! Or has it clouded your thinking?? Nobody is to blame for his death except for himself. He chose to stay and take that chance. President Bush did not make him stay nor did anyone. He was a grown man tortured by evil people. This is just another jew crying over something. He can't sue anyone because his son owned his own company so instead he's trying to find money somewhere else. I'm sick of the jews pissing and moaning about America and our President. If you don't like it, go home to Israel and do something about it. Hollywood is 90% jewish and they are the worst offenders. Pleazzzzz! Who gives a rat's ass what they think? Not me. I will not support anyone who goes out and criticizes our President or nation. Stupid liberals!

To blame our President when his son wanted to go and work, as Mr. Berg was well aware, is so pathetic. He was lying today on T.V. 6/29 at his latest protest rally about the 9-11 Comm. I guess he has not heard, like all the left, that they found link between Iraq and AlQuada. He and Michael Moore are eating out of the same bucket of crap. What a disgrace to your son's memory.

I found this website via the yahoo search engine. I was looking for a way to relay my dismay at Michael Berg's mis-direction of his grief. I read 5-6 different versions of the news daily via newpapers/websites in different countries. I am deeply disturbed by how many occurances there are of muslim extremist organizations trying to take over non-Muslim nations via separation. It appears the common American is oblivious to this. I seriously doubt Kerry has a very good handle on this either otherwise he would not be using this war, which is about protecting our nation from this exact type of activity, for political gain. I will not vote for him for that reason alone. I do not believe he will make the necessary decisions, very tough decisions, to keep this nation a free nation and protect them from this type of invasion. The only other option to the direction President Bush took is to give in to them. I have daughters. I like looking at their faces.

To Michael Williams; I found this site looking for a place to voice out against stupidity (Sen. Kennedy, Kerry, Mr. Berg, etc...). I voted dem "before" Clinton's 2nd term. Never again will I vote dem. I want to continue to be FREE!

I've always thought that Barbara Streisand's big nose has its own lung! Just had to throw in that comment.

The bit about the father talking to his sons is wrong, hitler was not a christian he was an atheist. Mr Berg is distrought and surely under alot of stress, his comments are obviously emotionally charged and should be shrugged off. I normally would degrade his lunatic thinking but he has reason to be upset and i can understand why. Imagine your son being killed and the whole world seeing it. Unlike many here in the states i choose to watch the video, it reminds me of what we are fighting against, and i for one find the appeasement movement purely unamerican. I cannot stand the state of my country, 3000 civilians die and half the country still hasnt woken up!

I seen the comments from bergs father on drudge and did a yahoo search and here i am, i think ill be here frequently, it posts a little slow tho!

I assume that Michael Berg would feel much better if we as a country just let the muslim terrorists come over here and kill at their pleasure as they ahve done before. He assumes that they are rational, caring people who, if just left alone, would be ever so nice and could be invited over for dinner. They are not rational people; they only desire to kill and the easier the target the better. There is snot glory for them to engage in a military campaign, rather they feel it is more glorious to kill unsuspecting civilians-- the more innocent the victim, the better. If I were Berg's son I would be rolliung over in my grave and wishing that I had someone else as a father.

Hatred will destroy all of us.

Nicholas Berg traveled alone, with neither a bodyguard nor a translator, carried a passport with an Israeli stamp on it, had a Jewish surname, spoke no Arabic, and the Iraqi police apparently picked Nick up after a night of drunken mischief.

People with whom Nick associated in Iraq describe him as oblivious to the danger around him. According to one account, Andy Duke, an American businessman staying at the same hotel as Nick Berg, said, "I would call him adventurous. He was very comfortable that the political risks here weren't any greater than the physical risks of being up on a tower."

Another hotel resident, Chilean journalist Hugo Infante, said, "He was always concerned about his business. He never talked about the war ... He was never worried about his safety here, never worried about the bombings."

Governmental authorities and the Berg family give different accounts over some details of Berg's experience in Iraq. According to U.S. officials, the Iraqi police detained Nick for 13 days, then released him. The Berg family produced an e-mail in which a U.S. consular officer in Iraq wrote that Berg was "being detained by the U.S. military." The U.S. government denies ever taking Nick into custody, and calls the e-mail incorrect, due to the consular officer's misinformation from the Coalition Provisional Authority.

Beyond this, the FBI says it warned Berg of the danger in Iraq, and even offered a charter jet to fly him out of the country. Berg's father confirmed the offer, but stated that his son rejected it because Nick thought it too dangerous to travel to Baghdad International Airport.

Michael Berg admits he supports neither the war nor Bush, but called his son a Bush supporter who agreed with the president's decision to invade Iraq. Nick sought to be part of Iraq's reconstruction and the wished-for evolution into a free and democratic state.

In directing his outrage, Michael Berg might wish to compare the Arab world's widespread coverage of the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal vs. the tepid response over Nick's execution. According to NBC News, "TV coverage [about Nicholas Berg's killing] was scant but sympathetic, with the two major Arab networks, Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, carrying the story as a brief news item for half a day."

A few Arab countries, like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, quickly condemned the beheading. So did the terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas.

"Hezbollah condemns this grisly act which has caused great harm to Islam and to Muslims by this group which falsely claims to belong to the religion of mercy, compassion and genuine human values," said the Hezbollah statement. But the terrorist organization qualified its condemnation: "By its suspicious actions and links, this group belongs to the Pentagon school – the school of killings, occupation, crime, torture and immoral practices as exposed by the big scandal in the occupation prisons."

Similarly, a Hamas representative qualified its outrage: "I condemn this brutal act and sympathize with the family of the slain American man, who I consider the victim of the wrong U.S. policies in the region. U.S. President George Bush and [Berg's] killers are equally responsible." Right.

Nicholas Berg died because wanton, brutal Islamist killers fear a free, prosperous and democratic Iraq in their midst. Period.

SOMETHING INTERESTING ABOUT MICHAEL MOORE
I HATE MICHAEL MOORE!!!!!!!
Excited about Fahrenheit 9/11? It's the Palme d'Or-winning and soon-to-be Oscar-winning documentary from average blue-collar multi-millionaire Michael Moore, and it opens in Britain next week. I saw it over the weekend on my side of the Atlantic, with an audience comprised wholly of informed, intelligent sophisticates.
I knew they were informed, intelligent sophisticates because they howled with laughter at every joke about what a bozo Bush is. They split their sides during the patriotic ballad – eagles soaring, etc – composed and sung by John Ashcroft, the famously sinister US Attorney-General. Moore reveals – and if you feel that knowing the plot would spoil the movie, please skip to the next paragraph – that Bush is a privileged simpleton under the control of war-crazed Big Oil interests who arranged to have the 2000 election stolen for him. I hadn't heard that before, had you?
Once Moore gets past his recounting of the Florida recount, I was pleasantly surprised by how much I agreed with in the movie. For example, he's very hard on the Saudis, and the unique access to the Bush family enjoyed by their oleaginous ambassador in Washington, Prince Bandar. He's also very mocking of the absurdities of post-9/11 airport security, alighting on a poor mom forced to drink a beaker of her own breast milk in front of passengers before boarding in order to demonstrate the liquid wasn't anything incendiary.
As we left, the couple ahead of me said they thought Bush would have a hard job responding to these shocking revelations. I didn't like to point out they could have heard about all this stuff years ago just by reading yours truly. I mentioned the breast-milk incident in this very space on August 10, 2002. I called for Prince Bandar to be booted back to Saudi in a Spectator column from November 2002, and I've been urging the dismantling of the kingdom – Washington's out-of-control Frankensaud monster – for almost three years now, since within a month of 9/11.
So in theory I ought to welcome Michael Moore as a comrade in arms. But the trouble with Fahrenheit 9/11 is that you don't come away thinking about the Saudis or America's useless bureaucracy, you come away laughing at Bush.
And, if feeling snobbishly superior to the President isn't your bag, what's left is an incoherent bore. Moore follows his GUT, by which I mean his Grand Universal Theory: Bush is to blame for everything. Because of Bush, the Saudis secretly run US policy. Because of Bush, the Taliban were in bed with Texas energy executives. Because of Bush, the Taliban got toppled.
Whoa, hold up a minute, I thought he was all pals with the Taliban. The Saudis certainly were, which is why they opposed the liberation of Afghanistan. But by now Moore's moved on to pointing out that Bush's Afghan stooge Hamid Karzai used to work for the Texas energy company panting for that big Afghan gas pipeline.
But hang on, I thought the Texan energy guys already had the Taliban in their pockets and were funded by the Saudis. "Connecting the dots" is all very well, but not when you've got more dots in your picture than Seurat.
Bush has always been the issue for Moore. On September 11 itself, his only gripe was that the terrorists had targeted New York and DC instead of Texas or, indeed, my beloved New Hampshire: "They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC and the plane's destination of California – these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!"
The fellows at the controls of those planes were training for 9/11 when Clinton was president and Gore was ahead in the polls, and they'd have still been in the cockpit had Ralph Nader been elected. Though Mohammed Atta took flying lessons in Florida, he apparently wasn't as exercised about its notorious hanging chads as Michael Moore. Mr Moore is guilty of what I believe psychologists call "projection".
The "Why didn't you terrorists kill the Bush voters?" line is not reprised in the movie, but the strange preoccupations it betrays drive the entire picture. Here's the way it works: if Bush is wearing the blue boxer shorts, they're a suspicious personal gift from Crown Prince Abdullah. If Bush is wearing the red boxer shorts, it's a conspiracy to distract public attention from the blue ones he was given by Crown Prince Abdullah. If he's wearing no boxer shorts, it's because he's so dumb he can't find his underwear in the morning.
So, shortly after 9/11, Moore wrote that footage of one of the World Trade Centre planes showed that it was being trailed by an F-16 – ie, the government could have shot it down but chose not to, so it could hit all those Al Gore voters. Imagine if, on September 11, the USAF had blown four passenger jets to kingdom come. Moore's film would be filled with poignant home movies of final Christmases and birthday parties and exploitative footage of anguished parents going to Washington to demand the truth about what happened that day and an end to the lame Bush spin about "threats" to public buildings.
Midway through the picture, a "peace" activist provides a perfect distillation of its argument. He recalls a conversation with an acquaintance, who observed, "bin Laden's a real asshole for killing all those people". "Yeah," says the "pacifist", "but he'll never be as big an asshole as Bush." That's who Michael Moore makes films for: those sophisticates who know that, no matter how many people bin Laden kills, in the assholian stakes he'll always come a distant second to Bush.
I can understand the point of being Michael Moore: there's a lot of money in it. What's harder to figure out is the point of being a devoted follower of Michael Moore. Apparently, the sophisticated, cynical intellectual class is so naïve it'll fall for any old hooey peddled by a preening opportunist burlesque act. If the Saudis were smart, they'd have bought him up years ago, established his anti-Saudi credentials, and then used him to promote the defeat of their nemesis Bush.
Hmm. Maybe they don't need to. Stick him in a headdress and he looks like King Fahd's brother. All I'm saying is connect the dots.

For those of you who are die hard Republican's like me, please check out the site at www.ihatemichaelmoore.com
It's funny and very educational.
Also, you can send emails to Michael at www.mike.michaelmoore.com
Remember......WE HATE MICHAEL MOORE! AND ALL THE OTHER HOLLYWOOD A**HOLES THAT THINK WE GIVE A DAMN ABOUT WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY! To name a few democratic vocalist,Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand, Barbra Streisand's Nose---lol, Jennifer Aniston, Sean Penn, Jessica Lange, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Martin Sheen, Rosie O'Donnell(she's Michael Moore's fat sister or brother, I'm confused on her gender)not really (lol), and let's not forget the girl from "The Fat Dixie Chicks", etc...Do not support their ego! Do not buy their music or view their movies. These people hate America and what we stand for. They should be charged with treason!

Vickie some guy out there is really lucky to have you, or someone will be. Conservative woman are too rare.

Awwww! Thank you Chris. Ditto! I am happily married to a wonderful Republican. I found this web site via Yahoo search engine as well. It's just a nice place to visit and vent to people who love America! Woo Hoo! I love this country and all it stands for. I love Republicans! I love anyone who fights for this country and it's rights. I will always respect our President and the military no matter what!!!!!! (Even if it's a Democrat!) I just wish I could do something more about the treason problem, but we are just so damn nice. Thank you and let's keep badmouthing the liberals! :)

I'm sorry everyone, the web site is
www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com
I made a mistake in an earlier posting.
Enjoy!

Oh look, a discussion about one topic turns into a completely random tirade against Liberals, Michael Moore and Jews.

Badmouthing liberals, nice. So you can't handle a properly reasoned and worded argument? You have to resort to shady comments about people? Well done. I'm gonna nominate you for the Darwin Award. I know your not dead yet, but.... *fingers crossed*

AJ: "You" meaning who? It's not nice to use pronouns without anchoring them to some specific subject. It's also not nice to wish for people to die, at least not merely because of what they write on a website.

Andy Jones.......pleazzzzzz! Go choke on your own sperm and die then you can win your own Darwin Award. Your just some young punk that has no place on a web site with educated people. Unfortunately your mother and father chose to reproduce and you are the unfortunate product.