Bad grief?

I see that Nick Berg's father Michael (who is running for Congress) has expressed sadness for Zarqawi's death and blames Bush for the murder of his son:

"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."

Berg said Bush was to blame for the torture of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.

"Yeah, like George Bush didn't OK the torture and death and rape of people in the Abu Ghraib prison for which my son was killed in retaliation?" he told his Fox interviewers.

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."

I don't mean to belittle anyone who is grieving, but this guy almost cries out for the full Ann Coulter treatment. That doesn't mean I'd say he was glad for his son's death, because no father ever is. But I saw a huge amount of transference and denial during the early AIDS epidemic in the 1980s. I was grieving myself then, and I have never stopped grieving.

But grieving is not a license to spout nonsense. Back when most of my friends were dying, lots of people were grieving. I and many others were in the direst, most desperate mental states imaginable. Many became activists, and advanced the seemingly plausible claim that AIDS had been created by government scientists at a laboratory in Fort Detrick, Maryland. It was largely a waste time arguing with them, because this belief was fueled by emotion. (And the need for emotional satisfaction.)

I'm sure there are some people who still believe the Fort Detrick claim.

[Yes there are. Typical claim here; debunked here.]

So I know firsthand how the grieving process can cause people to go through strange and twisted convolutions in their thinking. To the extent that his thoughts are contaminated by misdirected grieving, Michael Berg has my sympathy.

That doesn't mean I'd ever consider agreeing with him.

(Much less voting for him.)

MORE: In the latest story from Yahoo.com, Michael Berg now says Bush is "more of a terrorist than Zarqawi," because Zarqawi looked his son in the eyes when beheading him, while Bush sits in an office:

Berg said the blame for most deaths in Iraq should be placed on President Bush, who he said is "more of a terrorist than Zarqawi."

"Zarqawi felt my son's breath on his hand as held the knife against his throat. Zarqawi had to look in his eyes when he did it," Berg added, pausing to collect himself. "George Bush sits there glassy-eyed in his office with pieces of paper and condemns people to death. That to me is a real terrorist."

By that logic, Bush is more of a terrorist than the 9/11 hijackers themselves. And FDR was a greater terrorist than Reinhard Heydrich.

posted by Eric on 06.08.06 at 09:13 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/3693






Comments

The real shame of it is that there are political opportunists who will support him in his delusions because his status as a grieving father gives him some novelty and a shadowy 'expert' status, which is the staple of much irrational debate.

Dennis   ·  June 8, 2006 09:46 AM

When I read this I can only stare slack-jawed in disbelief. People like this is why I turned my back on the Left. Total moral bankruptcy.

Cervus   ·  June 8, 2006 04:33 PM

If Michael Berg weren't running for Congress, the best thing would be to ignore him, and chalk it up to "there but for the grace of God go I", because it is hard to judge the effects of grief, as Eric states.

But it is unfathomable to me that he is using the murder of his son as a springboard for Congress. I am hoping that his opponent will not permit him to hide behind his grief, while he peeks out to lob grenades like this.

pikkumatti   ·  June 8, 2006 05:15 PM

Berg, like Cindy Sheehan, more than revels in whatever grief they still feel. Like her, he is using it to keep the cameras on him. Both are whores for publicity. Coulter is more right than wrong in her remarks about the World Trade widows. And they apply to Berg and Sheehan.

Jerry Carroll   ·  June 8, 2006 07:35 PM

Why kill gays, anyway? If memory serves, gay men in America are the top income bracket (by sex and sexuality), so they pay a lot of taxes. Killing them would be bad for the economy, and the government.

Jon Thompson   ·  June 8, 2006 07:39 PM

I listened to Berg being interviewed by Michael Medved. I didn't hear any sadness, more of a chip on the shoulder, aggressive, sure in his "moral certitude" who said so many outregeous things I can barely begin. One small exchanges as best as I can recall:

MEDVED: Let's say it's 9/12/01 and you could have gotten Bin Laden on the phone. What would you have said?

BERG: I would have asked him what he wanted.

MEDVED: and what if he said he wanted no more contact, of any kind, between the Islamic world and the West ever again.

BERG: I would have given it to him.
-------
This is so shocking it's hard to respond.

Darleen   ·  June 8, 2006 09:13 PM

Hello all......

Anna   ·  June 14, 2006 09:42 AM


December 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits