« Stepford Children | Main | How Low Can JLo Go? »

An Interview With Michael Berg

Bill at INDCJournal stopped by the ANSWER protest in DC this weekend, and was able to get an interveiw with Nick Berg's father. Michael Berg fits himself for a tin foil hat quite nicely with is own tape recorded words.

"My son was a member of the Socialist Workers Party, yes he was, my son David, not my son Nick, my older son David. I supported his efforts working with the Socialist Workers' Party, and I went with him to the headquarters in NY and I attended the rallies and I supported his trips to Cuba and... I donít really want to say (gestures to me) because heís (got a recorder)."
Later as to why he had referenced Dr. Martin Luther King in his speech.
ďLet me put it to you this way, I donít think that Dr. King's murder was solved, and I donít think that my sonís murder was solved, if you know what Iím saying ..."
It's a must read.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference An Interview With Michael Berg:

» Slant Point linked with Nick Berg's Father... continued

Comments (9)

I think we should cut the g... (Below threshold)

I think we should cut the guy some slack, who knows how any of us would react if our kid had a staring role in a snuff film. I agree (even as someone who does not support Bush), that he is a little out there, and has been even before his kid was killed, but damn, as a father I have sympathy for him...

I think the guy needs some ... (Below threshold)

I think the guy needs some serious grief counseling... or a muzzle.

Just curious how long we ar... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Just curious how long we are supposed to cut this guy some slack for his outlandish views of who is responsible for his son's death? I sympathize for the guy because I have never experienced anything close to what he must be going through, but everytime he opens his mouth he is using his son's death to further his own belief.

At what point do we start to say this man is just hell bent on furthering ANSWER's cause and will use anything, including his son's death, to obtain that goal.

I agree Mike, but everytime... (Below threshold)

I agree Mike, but everytime it is covered here and elsewhere, it just gives him a forum, dontcha think?

I tend to give people slack... (Below threshold)

I tend to give people slack until they start hanging out with Stalinists...but that's just me...

No, you cut him some slack ... (Below threshold)
cj:

No, you cut him some slack because he is an inconsequential looney who is only being heard -- to his own detriment -- because his son was publicly murdered.

To wit -- you let him go quietly into the good night, and you don't pile on, because you, yourself, are a decent person.

Pity is a long lost art. Let's bring it back.

hi... (Below threshold)
hamid:

hi

THE WORLD SITUATION† *† A L... (Below threshold)
Ademming:

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.

There are many inaccuracies... (Below threshold)
Joe Mac:

There are many inaccuracies in this "letter to my sons." I also sniff out that there is no such author. I'd like to know who the retired attorney father of these 4 sons is.

The 400,000 "chemically killed" is a lie. For an attorney to defend our abrogation of rules of the Geneva Convention is very troubling. The most grievous error is the statement that we were attacked without provocation. We have provoked the Muslim world for over 35 years by our unwavering support for their mortal enemy, Israel. There has never been a UN vote when we didn't back Israel. When a UN proclamation ordered Israel to move back to their '67 borders, Israel ignored the UN and we backed them. For 35 years over 3 million Palestinians have lived in refugee camps. Israel settlements have been continually expanded so that now 400,000 Israelis live now on what was Arab land. They have run completely run roughshod over them. Palestinians living in contested territories can't drive on the same roads, must have different license plates, must undergo daily humiliations as they try to live their lives. One of the basic blocks of the UN charter states that land gained through armed conflict must be returned. Israel has always defied it.

The US each year gives 3 billion dollars in aid to Israel, the most of any country. Do you think Israel is poverty stricken? Not by a long shot. When they attack a refugee camp with helicopters and missiles, who do you think supplies the military hardware? The current leader, Sharon, is a butcher, infamous for massacres of Palestinians in Lebanon in 1975. In addition to the outright grant of $3 billion, we regularly guarantee loans which every member of Congress know will never be repaid.

How does Israel get so much of our tax dollars without even a congressional debate about it? Through their lobbying of congressmen. They intensely lobby the House Appropriations Committee and support through contributions the 12 members so that annually they just rubber-stamp approving the money for Israel. I find it galling that agents of a foreign government can influence how we spend our money.

Congressmen who don't go along with the Israel lobby encounter fierce opposition when they come up for re-election. Paul Findlay was a representative for Illinois for 22 years. After he dared to speak out in opposition against our unfair, unbalanced, one-sided support of Israel, he faced an opponent in the next election who had enormous financial backing by Israeli lobbying groups and was ousted from Congress. Similar assaults have occurred against Senator Pete McCloskey (California) and at least 4 others. The current situation is that our Congressman are afraid to take the Palestinian side in Congress.

Some are not afraid. Senators Byrd (W.Va) and Hollings (SC) are two such. In May, Hollings made a speech in Congress in which his words were "Every Senator and Representative knows why we went to war in Iraq; it was to secure Israel."

Foreign affairs in this administration have been taken over by neo-conservatives whose leaders in 1996 put together their "Plan for a New American Century." The linch-pin of the plan was to establish a big US presence in the Middle East, and specifically, Iraq.
The neo-conservative architects? Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, both of whom have had and in Wolfowitz's case still have, high positions in our government. But guess what? These 2 guys were also, in the 90's, paid consultants to the Israel Likud party.
The 9/11 attack gave them the perfect opportunity to fulfill the plan they had developed. Blame it on Iraq and shove it down gullible American throats; cloak it in patriotism. So we've been fed a pack of lies and dumb, ambitious Georgie W. has been chosen to run with it. While we and the world are so taken up with Iraq, Sharon is acting more vicious than ever because we're all to busy.

Nobody in government will make the case I just laid out. The first thing would be charges of anti-Semitism.

Joe MacDougall




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright ¬© 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy