Blame Bush, Not Zarqawi
Travis wrote two years ago about the sad Bush derangement syndrome of Nick Berg’s father.
Well, guess who the media is trotting out now to dampen the happy news of Zarqawi’s death? That’s right…Michael Berg!
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.”
This is exactly the “liberal doctrine of infallibility” than Ann Coulter has been talking about. “You can’t respond to Mr. Berg…he’s a victim…he lost a family member.” Ditto Cindy Sheehan. Ditto Clown Wilson. And the list goes on.
6 Responses to “Blame Bush, Not Zarqawi”
Leave a Reply
note: by commenting, you indicate that you have read and accept all-encompassingly's comment policy. please print it and keep a copy of the document in your wall safe along with your living will or advance directive.
Here’s another quote from a CNN interview with Mr. Berg which I think speaks less of a “sad Bush derangement syndrome” and more of a philosophy of peace.
Berg: Zarqawi is also a political figure and his death will reignite yet another wave of revenge. Revenge is something I do not follow. I do not ask for against anybody and it’s an endless cycle as long as people use violence to combat violence-ahh we will always have violence.
Soledad: I have to say sir I’m surprised, I know how devastated you were-your family was frankly when Nick was killed in such a horrible and brutal—
Berg: Well you shouldn’t be surprised because I have never said anything but forgiveness and peace…
Unfortunately, Wendy, Mr. Berg is just dead wrong (no pun intended). He seems to imply that killing Zarqawi was “revenge” and that we should “forgive” Zarqawi. That is just a load of steamy horse doo-doo.
Zarqawi was a thug. He was a murderer who didn’t shudder at killing U.S. soldiers, Iraqi civilians, or even hostages like Mr. Berg’s son.
If Mr. Berg wants to personally forgive Zarqawi for killing his son, that is his business. But when Mr. Berg suggests that the United States or Iraqis don’t have the right (and obligation!) to eliminate a threat to the very security of their citizens then he is being affected by Bush Derangement Syndrome.
It is sad that so many on the Left have lost all concept of good and evil in this war. Would people like Mr. Berg have complained during WWII had one of the United States’ attempts on Hitler’s life been successful?
Perhaps Mr. Berg or others would have said something as utterly stupid and ignorant as, “Hitler is also a political figure and his death will reignite yet another wave of revenge.”
Which brings us to your “philosophy of peace”. Do you honestly believe, Wendy, that Islamofascists are going to stop attacking America and the West if we just let them alone? Did you just awake from a 15-year coma?
This philosophy of peace, ironically, only breeds more violence. Read a little bit of what Osama bin Laden says/writes. The reason they kept hitting the U.S. harder and harder is that they viewed (knew?) that we wouldn’t respond. That we were essentially a nation of wimps. A nation of Mr. Berg and his ilk.
Heaven forbid Mr. Berg be elected to to Congress. The terrorists would love nothing more.
Settle down Doug. Mr. Berg self-identifies as a pacifist, I chose a quote that illustrates his outlook.
I haven’t stated my veiws at all, so you telling me to “wake up from a 15- year coma” is totally out of line.
Your links at the top of the page about you and your blog aren’t working. I’m curious as to why this blog is linked on LDSelect–that is where I came across your blog in the first place.
I apologize. I did not realize that you did not share Mr. Berg’s views.
I’m not sure why the links weren’t working. Here is the info page:
http://www.all-encompassingly.com/about-us/
that admonition would be more appropriate for doug’s world cup countdown blogging, but whatever.
this would be a great time to tell us your views! for example, if you think turning the other cheek to terrorism is a good foreign policy decision, why not make an argument for it?
in any case, doug’s reply was not just a critique of bush derangement syndrome, but of pacifism in the face of islamic terrorism.
george bush is the best if it wher not for him that terrorist scum bag whould not have been killed and more inocent americans and other inocent people around the world whould have died they are affraid of us right now tem commies are all going to die alqida better wach ther backs