You might recall that about two years ago, an American named Nick Berg — who went to Iraq as a civilian volunteer to help rebuild the country — was captured and killed. He was beheaded on videotape, and while the face of the executioner was not visible, the voice and the caption on the tape said it was Zarqawi — the same Zarqawi who was a top al-Qaeda leader until he was killed yesterday by U.S. special forces.
Now Michael Berg, the father of Nick Berg, the American beheaded by Zarqawi, is running for Congress — and he is saying that President Bush, not Zarqawi, is responsible for his son’s death:
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) – Michael Berg, whose son Nick was beheaded in Iraq in 2004, said on Thursday he felt no sense of relief at the killing of the al Qaeda leader in Iraq and blamed President Bush for his son’s death.
Asked what would give him satisfaction, Berg, an anti-war activist and candidate for U.S. Congress, said, “The end of the war and getting rid of George Bush.”
In a telephone interview with Reuters from his home in Wilmington, Delaware, the father said: “I have no sense of relief, just sadness that another human being had to die.”
Berg, who is running as a Green Party candidate, has repeatedly blamed Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for his 26-year-old son’s death.
Zarqawi picked up the knife, Zarqawi put it on Nick Berg’s neck, Zarqawi cut off Nick Berg’s head, and Zarqawi had it all videotaped for the “glory” of Allah. But Nick Berg’s death isn’t Zarqawi’s fault, it’s Bush and Rumsfeld’s fault.
This is so twisted I can’t even begin to comprehend it. I used to think that liberals had the same goals as conservatives like me, just different ideas for how to achieve those goals. But when I read something like that, it’s hard to imagine that people are on the left are not either morally deranged, or mentally ill.
This is not “being against the war.” It is not even “being for the other side,” as many of the so-called “anti-war” protesters like A.N.S.W.E.R. seem to be.
This is saying that the man who murdered his son is a victim, an OK guy even, and the man who put that murderer out of business is the real evil one.
Don’t believe me? Read on:
Nick Berg’s videotaped beheading by hooded captors was posted on the Internet, and the father said he could understand what Zarqawi’s family was going through.
“I have learned to forgive a long time ago, and I regret mostly that that will bring about another wave of revenge from his cohorts from al Qaeda,” he told Fox.
Zarqawi’s organization took responsibility for the execution of Nick Berg in May 2004. The video was published with a caption saying: “Abu Musab al-Zarqawi slaughtering an American.”
He learned to forgive Zarqawi for killing his son — and no douht for the thousands of Iraqis and other Americans killed by Zarqawi’s organization — but he can’t forgive Bush for killing Zarqawi.
Imagine if the father of a young man murdered in Philadelphia could forgive the murderer — but wanted to get rid of the policeman who arrested the murderer.
How far has this father gone, that he suppresses human nature, simple logic, and the love of his son — to avoid having to give up his political ideology?
And one more thing — he basically told CNN that Bush is pro-al-Qaeda:
BERG: Democracy? Come on. You can’t really believe that that’s a democracy there when the people who are running the elections are holding guns. That’s not democracy.
SOLEDAD O’BRIEN: There is a theory that as they try to form some kind of government that, in fact, it’s going to be brutal, it’s going to be bloody, there’s going to be loss and that’s the history of many countries, that that’s just a lot of people pay for what they believe will be better than what they had under Saddam Hussein.
BERG: Well, you know, I’m not saying Saddam Hussein was a good man, but he’s no worse than George Bush. Saddam Hussein didn’t pull the trigger, didn’t commit the rapes. Neither did George Bush, but both men are responsible for them under their reigns of terror. I don’t buy that.
Iraq did not have al Qaeda in it. Al Qaeda supposedly killed my son. Under Saddam Hussein, no al Qaeda. Under George Bush, al Qaeda. Under Saddam Hussein, relative stability. Under George Bush, instability.
If you want to vote for this guy, he’s running for Congress in Delaware.
Unfortunately, I expect that in another five years, we are going to be seeing some college students (you know, the really smart ones for whom conventionality is a badge of dishonor) with al-Zarqawi T-shirts and posters, and professors lamenting that the death of al-Zarqawi was the last chance for authentic, indigenous Arab democracy.
I wouldn’t be surprised. When I was in college I saw a lot of Che Guevara shirts. Guevara was one of the leading terrorists of his time — As Paul Berman points out, he organized the first firing squads to murder opponents of Fidel Castro’s regime, and called for “Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine. This is what our soldiers must become” — but he was an ardent communist, so that made him “OK” to many people. Time magazine listed him as one of the 100 Heroes of the 20th Century, and described him as “the obscure Argentine doctor who abandoned his profession and his native land to pursue the emancipation of the poor of the earth” and a “Christ-like figure.” I’m no expert in Christianity, but is it really considered “Christ-like” to advocate “unbending hatred for the enemy” and becoming “an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine”?
But Time calls him a hero, and you can buy T-shirts, hats, and mugs with his picture. I put the link to the “Che Store” there, and I hope you follow that link so you believe me — but I hope you don’t buy anything there.
Why do people idolize Che and demonize Hitler? Is it just because Hitler was more successful and mass-murder? That’s the only difference I can see.