Good question: Remember Nicholas Berg? He was the American contractor kidnapped and beheaded on camera, ostensibly by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien interviewed his father after Zarqawi was assassinated. It’s an interesting interview:
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.
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 whole interview here.
Thanks to AK for the tip.
Bravo to Michael Berg for going the route of peace, of turning the other cheek. It’s a brave and difficult thing for a person who’s suffered the kind of loss he has to take the high road.
I am so glad you mentioned this wonderful man who resembles a Christian more than any of Bush’s friends. Christians often wear a bracelet that says “What would Jesus do?” Well, he would act like Mr. Berg, not President Bush and his cronies.
God bless Mr. Berg. What an inspiration for these troubled, violent times!
As MLK said, “Violence is a poor chisel for carving out more peaceful tomorrows”.