Michael Berg to Soledad O'Brien: I'm sorry whenever any human being dies.

[Stand and Fight]

It's nice to see that there are still sane people in this world. It is even nicer to see that one of them was more than likely directly affected by al-Zarqawi, but despite that -- and unlike some of the DUers on here -- he is not finding the death a cause to celebrate. His name is Michael Berg, and his son was killed by al-Zarqawi and his men. Read his reaction to the noxious questions of CNN's nefarious Soledad O'Brien. I assure you -- at least those of you who don't glory in death -- that you will not be disappointed with his humane and level-headed replies. I dare say that the gentleman is spot-on! Here are some excerpts from the interview:

O'BRIEN: Mr. Berg, thank you for talking with us again. It's nice to have an opportunity to talk to you. Of course, 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.

~~~snip~~~

O'BRIEN: There's a theory that a struggle for democracy, you know...

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.

~~~snip~~~

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.

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?



Read the full transcript of the interview here: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/08/berg.interview/index.html

I have to say that I am beyond impressed with Mr. Berg, because it is people like him who will lead the way of getting us out of the quagmire in Iraq. Killing al-Zarqawi is not going to bring our troops home, but what it will certainly do is create more people like him in Iraq. For that matter, it is not just killing al-Zarqawi, for I will confess that there is ample reason to believe he is a fictional character, but every day that an Iraqi dies as a result of our presence, how many al-Zarqawi/bin Laden types are being created? The fact of the matter is that you do not combat violence and death with more violence and death.

As to his comparison between Bush and Hussein -- he's absolutely correct.

[stepnw1f]

1. Bush is as bad as Saddam

[partylessinOhio]

2. I would say * is worse than Saddam, IMO.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

3. Wow. What an amazing guy.

Amazing also how Soledad tried to put words in his mouth. Good for him for not falling for it.

[Supersedeas]

6. That took guts...Sosobad must have been just as surprised.

[Cha]

8. "sosobad" is

a very good description.

[xxqqqzme]

4. Betcha Michael Berg will not be a 'go 2 guy'

in the furure. Obviously, the man is way 2 sane and speaks truths not lies.

[gratuitous]

7. Yeah, don't look for Berg to become a regular

You can't be on the major media if you were against the invasion of Iraq before it all went south. The cable shows and the networks accord credibility only to folks who initially supported the invasion. If you were right all along, you don't get to say anything because you're too much of an embarrassment to the news shows which almost uniformly supported the invasion.

Additionally, if you're not in favor of death for death, you're not routinely welcomed on the popular media. They like their grieving relatives angry and bloodthirsty. Someone who mourns the death of any human being, and mentions inconvenient facts such as any family that Al Zarqawi might have had, makes for uncomfortably bad television. The media like their bad guys bad and their good guys good, without nuances or shadings. You start talking about our shared humanity, and the media don't get to draw their bright lines separating you from me anymore, and the next thing you know nobody's fighting or screaming at each other, and where's the fun in that?

[Downtown Hound]

5. It is so painfully obvious just reading this interview

how the media tries to whip up fury and desire for war in us. This CNN bitch tried everything she could to get this man to sound the bugle, but she failed. Good for him. My heart goes out to him for his terrible loss. The saddest thing is that war doesn't discriminate between the innocent and the guilty,. This man's son was no enemy to the Iraqi people. Bush, his cabinet, the corporations, and the millions of dumb ass freepers are. But more power to this man for refusing to fall into the trap.

[cali]

9. I certainly respect Mr. Berg

but there's a difference between celebrating a death, and not mourning one. I don't mourn for Al-Zarqawi. He chose to murder people and forment violence. Why should I mourn his death?