Michael Berg - Like Most of the Far-Left: No Understanding of Reality

Like most people, I really hate to be critical of Michael Berg. After all, he has experienced what is nearly every parent's greatest fear, the death of a child. Add to that the fact that he has to live knowing that his son Nick experienced one of the most brutal deaths imaginable; he was beheaded, while conscious and screaming.

As bad as I feel for Mr. Berg, however, he has now injected himself into the political debate, and has, therefore, opened himself to criticism when he engages in that debate.

In an interview last week with CNNs Soledad O'Brien, Berg showed that he has absolutely no concept of the reality of evil. His complete ignorance of that reality is masked in what is supposed to pass as liberal compassion.

Here are a few excerpts from that interview:

O'BRIEN: Mr. Berg, …I'm curious to know your reaction, as it is now confirmed that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the man who is widely credited and blamed for killing your son, Nicholas, is dead.

MICHAEL BERG: Well, my reaction is I'm sorry whenever any human being dies. Zarqawi is a human being. He has a family who are reacting just as my family reacted when Nick was killed, and I feel bad for that.

The difference is that Nick Berg didn't do anything to deserve what happened to him; Zarqawi was a murderous butcher.

MICHAEL BERG: I feel doubly bad, though, because Zarqawi is also a political figure, and his death will re-ignite yet another wave of revenge, and revenge is something that I do not follow, that I do not ask for, that I do not wish for against anybody. And it can't end the cycle. As long as people use violence to combat violence, we will always have violence.

Are you kidding me? What does he think we should have done? Maybe the President should have called Zarqawi on the phone and suggested that he enroll in some anger management classes.

O'BRIEN: … But at some point, one would think, is there a moment when you say, 'I'm glad he's dead, the man who killed my son'?

BERG: No. How can a human being be glad that another human being is dead?

I have to tell you, in Mr. Berg's situation, I would be glad Zarqawi's dead. For that matter, I am glad he's dead.

Some may say that I'm not being very Christian-like by saying that. My response is that I'm not glad Zarqawi's life turned out like it did. I would much rather that he would have grown to be a man who loved, a man of compassion, a man who made a positive impact on the world. However, given the reality that he was a man devoted to jihad, to the destruction of human life, I'm glad he's dead.

O'BRIEN: ... you talked about the fact that he's become a political figure. Are you concerned that he becomes a martyr and a hero and, in fact, invigorates the insurgency in Iraq?

BERG: Of course… take someone who in 1991, who maybe had their family killed by an American bomb, their support system whisked away from them, someone who, instead of being 59, as I was when Nick died, was 5-years-old or 10-years-old. And then if I were that person, might I not learn how to fly a plane into a building or strap a bag of bombs to my back?

That's what is happening every time we kill an Iraqi, every time we kill anyone, we are creating a large number of people who are going to want vengeance. And, you know, when are we ever going to learn that that doesn't work?

This is typical liberal drivel about how the United States has created the terrorists. It's our fault that 9-11 happened.

O'BRIEN: There's an alternate reading, which would say at some point, Iraqis will say the insurgency is not OK -- that they'll be inspired by the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the sense of, he was turned in, for example, we believe by his own No. 2, No. 3 leadership in his ranks.

And, that's actually them saying we do not want this kind of violence in our country…That would be an alternate reading to the scenario you're pointing to.

BERG: Yes, well, I don't believe that scenario, because every time news of new atrocities committed by Americans in Iraq becomes public, more and more of the everyday Iraqi people who tried to hold out, who tried to be peaceful people lose it and join -- what we call the insurgency, and what I call the resistance, against the occupation of one sovereign nation.

Again, blame America. It's the Americans who commit atrocities.

O'BRIEN: There's a theory that as they try to form some kind of government, that 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 -- and that's just what 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.

...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.

Under Saddam Hussein, about 30,000 deaths a year. Under George Bush, about 60,000 deaths a year. I don't get it. Why is it better to have George Bush the king of Iraq rather than Saddam Hussein?

It's difficult to know where to start with the blatant stupidity of that response.

First of all, al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to 2003. (Click here for an excellent article on this.)

Secondly, yes, Mr. Berg, al Qaeda killed your son.

Thirdly, Mr. Berg, can you not see any farther than the end of your nose? Under Saddam, the murders, the rapes, the wood chippers, etc. continue indefinitely. Under the new Iraqi government (not under George Bush), the possibility of peace and stability which you claim to be so in favor of. And I might add, Mr. Berg, it would be much easier for the new Iraqi government to establish peace and stability if they didn't have to fight the constant anti-American propaganda spewed forth from people like you.

If Mr. Berg doesn't seem to understand in this interview the facts about who killed his son, his lack of understanding is even more apparent in this comment from a FOX News interview as reported by Reuters:

"I don't think that Zarqawi is himself responsible for the killings of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq," Berg said in a combative television interview with the U.S. Fox News network. "I think George Bush is.

"George Bush is the one that invaded this country; George Bush is the one that destabilized it so that Zarqawi could get in, so that Zarqawi had a need to get in, to defend his region of the country from American invaders.

Again, Mr. Berg simply has his facts wrong. Zarqawi was in Iraq before the U.S. led invasion. But even more significant is his complete lack of being able to assign responsibility to the person who is responsible. Zarqawi is the one who took a knife in his hand and cut off Nick Berg's head, not George Bush.

The logic Mr. Berg is using is the same one that says if I get cancer from smoking cigarettes, it's the fault of the cigarette company; if someone eats too many french fries and has a heart attack, it's the fault of the fast food restaurant; if someone commits a murder with a gun, it's the fault of the gun manufacturer. Why doesn't Mr. Berg see if he can find out who manufactured the knife Zarqawi used to cut off his son's head; maybe he can blame the knife manufacturer for Nick's death.

An Associated Press report gives us another bit of insight into Mr. Berg's thinking:

Berg said "restorative justice," — such as being forced to work in a hospital where maimed children are treated — could have made Zarqawi "a decent human being."

Mr. Berg may be a far better man than I am. If someone did to my child what Zarqawi did to Nick Berg, I'm afraid I wouldn't have any desire to help that person become a decent human being. Beyond that, I think that Mr. Berg must be incredibly naive. I don't believe that working in a hospital where maimed children were being treated would have any effect on Zarqawi. The man was completely heartless; he was evil personified. Yes, it's sad that he allowed his life to become one of complete evil; however, that is the reality.

Sometimes you have to understand reality. The far-left, exemplified by Michael Berg's statements, do not.