All foreign troops OUT of Iraq -
End the torture, the killing, the occupation

End the Colonial Occupation of Palestine
Support the Right of Return

U.S. HANDS OFF of
Haiti, Korea, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia,
Philippines, Colombia, Cuba, Venezuela

Money for Jobs, Education, Housing & Healthcare - Not for War!
Defend Civil Liberties & Civil Rights

We'll take a closer look at Mr. Berg's associates in a forthcoming post.

After a series of predictable and vitriolic speeches, Mr. Berg's turn at the mic was greeted with great enthusiasm.

Fortunately, Mr. Berg's speech answered at least two of my prepared questions. And since Mr. Berg's time and patience were very limited in our later exchange, I'll take this opportunity to offer commentary on portions of his prepared statement. Highlights:

Recently my son, Nick Berg, traveled to Iraq in peace, fell into the wrong hands and was murdered. I wanted and needed to talk to my parents and sister, and much of the rest of my family who have died before me. I wanted to speak to them, and hear their words of comfort, and in a way I did, by finding a poem my mother wrote after my sister died, and which I read at Nick’s memorial service. And then shortly after, I got to hear from a man in the same way, who like Nick spent some time in jail because his own government didn’t understand him, and who later on was murdered while trying to do good things. His message came to me through his written words … his came to me through a speech he wrote, and it started out “I have a dream.” If I could speak to the late Rev martin Luther King, Jr., I’d tell him I share his dream, and Nick too shares his dream.

Mr. Berg compares his son favorably to Martin Luther King. While I might possibly see the analogy, because I view Nick Berg as a courageous idealist and entrepreneur, some of Michael Berg's co-protestors might beg to differ:

It didn't seem to bother Mr. Berg that many of his comrades were so critical of his son's efforts to obtain business as a result of the war. I have no doubt that Nick Berg was an idealist, but he was also a capitalist. In a war zone. A "war profiteer."

...

And yes, this is a war, and it is racist. Of the few negative cards or e-mails I received, all used the language of bigotry. Dr King knew how, and he consistently told us how to make change, and in his many words he preached, non-violent direct action, and that is exactly what we are taking now and what we must continue to take: non-violent direct action now!

So, by that logic, because much of the hate mail that Berg received uses the "language of bigotry," he draws the larger conclusion that the war in Iraq is fueled by racism? Considering that Berg's son was a supporter of the war, was he "racist?" Or is it just the rest of us?

But there is more to do and others to enlist, there are more vigils, more protests, more letters and e-mails to write, and phone calls to make to our leaders. There are petitions to write and petitions to sign, there are ballots to cast and there are ballots to be counted without the shadow of doubt being cast on the very heart of the democratic process!

Ah, Florida. Let me ask you this, Mr. Berg: where was your outrage for the Democratic process when Saddam Hussein received 99.8% of the vote? Or is your concern only for American Democracy? If so, isn't that an ethnocentric, "racist" focus? In the United States, we had hanging chads; in Iraq, the .2% that voted against Saddam Hussein were simply hanging.

America and beyond has been in touch lately, and the American public who let Nick and me and my family into their hearts, and who in turn have entered into mine, that American (unintelligible) has a message for the media too. The message is, "We're disgusted with you! And we don’t believe much of what corporate owned, corporate controlled media says anymore!

On this point, Mr. Berg and I are in complete agreement. Sort of. If I hear Judy Woodruff use the word "defeat" or "failure" one more time, I'm going to put my foot through my corporate-manufactured television screen.

Mr. Berg went on to discuss what he wants to happen to the men that murdered his son, answering another one of my prepared questions:

"There is a topic I’d promised my daughter Sarah I’d address, and that topic is the men that killed my son. She said that people don’t think I blame the men that murdered my son. That is not true Sarah; I do blame them. They should be arrested, subject to trial in a court of law, and if found guilty, never again be allowed to practice the brutality that cost my son his life. I cannot imagine the circumstances that would lead them or anyone to any violent act, let alone the atrocity that was done to my son."

You can't imagine? Because they want you dead, Mr. Berg. Your family is Jewish. Your son was Jewish. The people who killed your son are not merely desperate political operatives, they are religious fanatics that have no tolerance for the existence of non-Muslims, least of all Jews. If they met you in a dark alley, they would kill you in less time than it would take for you to mouth the word "peace."

Another of my original questions was then answered, regarding Bush's responsibility for his son's death:

"These men purposely sped up their hate train when they saw Nick lying on the track, however, I have to hold the Bush administration accountable for denying my son his civil rights for the 13 days of his illegal detention. If they were going to take illegal action, instead of violating the heart of the Constitution of the United States of America, why didn’t they just illegally deport him from Iraq and let us prove who he was at home? Their callous behavior, in effect, tied him to the track until it was no longer possible to escape that speeding hate train."

Mr. Berg's grief and hatred of the Bush Administration causes him to draw some interesting conclusions. He criticizes the FBI (and the Bush Administration directly) for holding his son without the benefit of an attorney for thirteen days. If this is all true, given his son's citizenship, it's certainly a valid criticism. But even though the FBI determined that Nick wasn't a terrorist, and advised and offered him a flight home, Mr. Berg goes on to express that he wishes the government would have violated Nick's civil rights by deporting his son. He's essentially upset with the fact that the FBI prioritized criminal/terrorist investigations in the course of alleged civil rights violations, rather than prioritizing the safety of his son.

I have no idea if the FBI violated his son's rights as a US citizen in a war zone; it's certainly possible. But even if this is true, I fail to see how their detention of Nick "tied him to the track;" Michael Berg seems to blame the FBI based on coincidental timing. His public assignation of blame implies that the FBI caused Nick's death because his detention somehow led to the chain of events where Nick was kidnapped. (More on Mr. Berg's private assignation of blame later in the interview.)

Nick Berg was traveling alone in a country filled with hostile terrorists. His independence fueled his refusal to leave. Nick Berg chose the risky path.

"Let’s act now to stop war and end racism! And let’s keep acting until we can raise a banner of peace that says mission accomplished!"

In his concluding sentence, Mr. Berg employs (for the fourth or fifth time) the acronym for ANSWER - "Act Now to Stop War and End Racism." If there was any doubt as to Berg's previous close involvement with this far left-wing group, it was beginning to evaporate.

After his speech, I made my way into the Press gallery and squeezed myself into the cluster of reporters. The ANSWER folks were very protective of Mr. Berg and didn't seem to want him to answer very many questions. In all fairness, this seemed to stem from a sense of paternalism/maternalism/gender-neutralernalism, given Mr. Berg's previously intrusive encounters with the media that took place immediately after his son's death.

Surprisingly, many of my prepared questions were covered by the other journalists that were interrogating Mr. Berg.

An unidentified television crew first asked him why he blamed the Bush Administration for his son's death.

Michael Berg: "They held my son for 13 days, without any of his civil rights. They violated so many of the amendments that are in the Bill of Rights that are at the very core of the basic document of democracy. And then, they said that my son refused to take their plane ride home, and of course they couldn’t violate his rights by making him do that. And again, as I said in my speech, why couldn’t they illegally deport him from Iraq?

Some of the Congresspeople that we called when my son was missing and asked to help us, uh, and got back to us a couple of days later and said, “No, we cant help. We can’t violate your son’s right to privacy.”

I wish they had violated my son’s right to privacy and helped him before he died, instead of violating his civil rights … his constitutional rights to be held without being accused of anything, without having a lawyer present, without even notifying his mother and his father and his brother and sister that he was alive. I wish they had violated that right of privacy and helped. Their priorities are a little mixed up here, don’t you think?"

Unidentified Reporter: "I know there’s no … (unintelligible) … solution for your personal experience, but does June 30th mean anything to you, with the handover?"

Michael Berg: "Yeah, June 30the means that they’re going to switch around the nut and shell game again, say a few words and … as long as, as long as we're over there, I think that people are going to die. As long as Americans are in Iraq, it is a slap in the face to those people, and more Americans are going to die, and more Iraqis are gonna die, and … realize that 601, I think was the count for American military, I don’t believe that number counts my son’s death and the many other civilians, American civilians that have died over there … but there are people over there from many other countries that are dying. And for every one of them, how many hundreds of Iraqis are dying? I’ve heard the figure of 11,000 dead Iraqi civilians, 11,000 dead Iraqi civilians. How many more times the number of people that died in this country on 9-11 is that, and how devastated are we that those people in, in the World Trade Towers died, and that devastation is times 3 and a third?"

I wanted to offer up the old argument - where was your concern for the dead Iraqi civilians that died under the regime of Saddam Hussein?

Unidentified Reporter: "Did Mr. Moore contact you, Michael Moore?"

Michael Berg: "What has happened between Mr. Moore and myself is personal."

Unidentified Reporter: "There are counter-protestors out there who are in support of this war, they’re using your son’s image to promote their cause, um, they said that you are … (unintelligible) … using the issue to promote your left-wing agenda. What is your response to that?"

(Wow, BIG media covers another INDC question)

Michael Berg: "Well, my son and I disagreed very much on the war and religion, on politics in general, uh, we both respected each others' opinions, uh, but even more than our opinions, we respected each others’ committment to act on our beliefs. My son was in Iraq, acting on his beliefs. I respect my son for the fact that he went over there; I wish he didn’t, but I respect the fact that he had to act on his beliefs, and although my son has always been in support of the Bush administration and this war, every time that I went to one of these rallies in Washington, he would say to me when I would get home that night, “Dad I’m really proud of you, I don’t agree with you, but I’m really proud of you for going out there and saying and doing what you believe in.” And I think that that’s a good answer to those people out there."

An Al Jazeera reporter then asked if this is the first time that Berg has spoken publicly at a protest.

Michael Berg: "Well, yeah, I was … in the King of Prussia, PA, about April 2003 in front of the Lockheed Martin plant where, um, there were a lot of cameras in front of my face and … (unintelligible) … but, it’s the first time I’ve spoken (after his son’s death). It’s the first time that people are ready to listen. It’s a shame that it has to be (after his son’ death)."

"I’m hoping that, I’m hoping that, the tide of support for this atrocious war is shifting. I’m hoping that I can suggest a few things for people to do, to act now directly and nonviolently to end this war, I’m hoping that I can convince people that the story that they getting in the media, maybe your media, isn’t exactly true. That they need to feel in their heart just one … of the tragedies, just one of the 601 American military tragedies and many other military tragedies from other countries, from civilian Americans to foreign nationals, that have died, and of the 11,000 Iraqi people that have died ... they need to think of that. They need to feel the sorrow of 11,000 people that have died.

I want them to stop what they are doing in Iraq. I want Americans out of Iraq. I want a truly international force of people to take their place and not with their guns, but with ... to ensure the democratic process is carried out

My mind reeled; this will be accomplished by an international force without ... weapons?

"I want the troops out now! Why do I want the troops out now? Because as long as the American troops (are there) the killing will continue, they’ll be shot at as long as the American troops are in Iraq. Al Qaeda will be attacking and all the terrorists in the world will be attacking. We have to start listening to our enemies, not speaking to them."

Al Jazeera: "Is there a message that you would like to send to the people of the world?"

Michael Berg: "Yes, join with the many, many Americans that oppose this war. By the way, I just got back from England, and the support in England for the antiwar movement is far stronger than they appear in America. Please join us, no matter what country you are in, no matter what your culture, join in making your opinion known that this war, any war, is wrong, and that what we need to do is listen to each other and not just speak to each other. Our politicians need to learn how to listen. They need to learn how to listen to the American public and they need to listen to the people that they call our enemies. Our enemies are desperate and they do desperate, awful, atrocious things which I do not condone. I’m not here to condone what they’ve done, I’m here to stop them ..."

After that answer, Mr. Berg stopped taking questions, but another man insistently asked him, “Is it possible to get your contact information, to follow up?”

Michael Berg: "Who are you?"

Socialist Workers Party Reporter: "I’m with the Socialist Workers newspaper."

Michael Berg: "Socialist Workers newspaper? (Enthusiastically) Oh, yeah , oh yeah, oh yeah … (gives info) my e-mail is the best way to contact, because my wife probably will slam down the phone on just about anyone who calls; she’s still in a very emotional state. 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 don’t really want to say (gestures to me) because he’s (got a tape recorder)."

What was he afraid to say? Was it incriminating, or is Mr. Berg merely aware that his utility and mainstream image as an antiwar advocate would be tarnished by close association with a Communist political group?

After that curious exchange, an individual identified himself as a representative from AlJazeera.net and asked another question. I have no idea whether this was another blogger, independent media or what, but I have serious doubts that this guy was from Al Jazeera. Besides his Aryan-poster boy looks (meaningless in-and-of-itself) and the fact that he unprofessionally scribbled Berg’s answers on a notepad in lieu of recording them, the nature of his question leads me to believe that he misrepresented himself. You be the judge:

"AlJazeera.net:" "One question … my condolences, but … the question I have is, it’s been reported that your son was, supported the war, and believed in what the US was doing in Iraq, and bringing freedom to an oppressed country … is it difficult for you to portray the things that you’re saying, to speak out against that effort, to try and reconcile it?"

Michael Berg: "As I’ve said to many people, and this goes back years and years and years, my son and I have always disagreed on politics, religion and just about everything except for rock climbing and kayaking, but we have always agreed to disagree, and we have always respected each other for acting on our beliefs. I respected, I respected my son’s courage tremendously for acting on his beliefs and going to Iraq, since that is what he believed, … and he knows I didn’t want him to go, but I never said “don’t go” because I know he had to do what he had to do."

"Every time I came to one of these marches here in Washington, and this is my fourth one here in Washington and I’ve been in King Prussia in Philadelphia and one in Westchester, uh, every time I went he would come up to me and touch my shoulder and say dad I don’t agree with what you think about this war, but I respect you for going out and standing up for what you believe.” So no, it doesn’t hurt me at all..."

At this point, I jumped in; I really wanted to get a fair give-and-take with Mr. Berg, but it was much harder than I had anticipated.

INDC Journal: "Your son agreed with intervention in Iraq, correct?"

Michael Berg: "Yes, he did."

INDC Journal: "And you said that, you mentioned that 11,000 (civilians) have died, I believe is the number in Iraq that have …"

Michael Berg: "That’s what I’ve heard."

INDC Journal: "Yes, I’ve heard that number too. Before the invasion of Iraq, UNICEF said that 36,000 Iraqis were dying a year, so it would … seem that the number of innocent Iraqi deaths have been reduced as a result of the occupation. You don’t agree with …"

Michael Berg: "Well, I have heard that 11,000 Iraqis have died as a direct cause of the war - been shot, killed, blown up, that doesn’t say that the 36,000 who weren’t dying before aren’t still dying! How many thousands of Americans die every year that have nothing to do with the war? What kind of statistical nut and shell game is that question?"

INDC Journal: "Yes, but …"

Michael Berg: "(Becoming slightly animated) I’m asking you a question, what are you trying to do with that?"

INDC Journal: "And I’m trying to answer. No, what I am saying is, that because oil for food money …wasn’t put into the right hands … that 36,000 were dying a year … (it’s also been) said that over a million were killed because of war, genocide and the murder of political prisoners in Iraq. My question to you is, from someone on the other side of this …"

Michael Berg: "Let me ask you this, I get your question now …"

INDC Journal: "How would you have ..."

Michael Berg: "Let me ask you this …"

INDC Journal: "… changed that …"

Michael Berg: "If it’s the American presence that is preventing these other deaths, because of the security that we’re supplying, and it’s the American presence that’s causing the 11,000 deaths because of the insult that it is to the Iraqi people, and those that are associating themselves, why not put in the international force that can keep the same security without all those insults? Without those 11,000 deaths?"

INDC Journal: "I might agree … but the problem is, how can we do that?"

Michael Berg: "Why can’t we do it? We can do it if we want to do it."

INDC Journal: "Well, you think that we need to pull troops out now, correct?"

Michael Berg: "Yes."

INDC Journal: "Without providing some sort of alternate security?"

Michael Berg: "No, I think we need to … I think we need to trade our troops for a truly international …"

INDC Journal: "And how should they go about doing that?"

Michael Berg: (Becoming animated) "I don’t know how to do it! I’m not a politician! I’m not a militarist! I’m not a strategist! I don’t know how to do it, but I think that it can be done if … I think that if the American people let their will be known, that that’s what they want to be done, get out of there now, stop the killing now, that’s what will happen!"

INDC Journal: "And you think that the United Nations will be willing …"

Michael Berg: "I don’t know that the UN would be any more accepted than the United States. I think that it has to be a truly international peacekeeping force. I think it has to include Middle Eastern countries."

INDC Journal: "So someone would have to put that force together to take the place of United States troops before they left …"

Michael Berg: "Yeah, but I think it can happen a lot faster than people think it can happen if we just leave …"

Mr. Berg was done taking questions from me. According to Mr. Berg, if American troops leave Iraq immediately, the security vacuum would be quickly filled by a yet-to-be-determined international security force that includes Middle Eastern nations ... one that doesn't need weapons. Because he wasn’t "a politician," "a strategist" or "a militarist," he didn’t feel comfortable outlining how such a force would come to exist, but he was perfectly comfortable in making the demand that US involvement cease, even in the face of certain Iraqi civil war.

At that point I was replaced with another fawning reporter who asked why Mr. Berg referenced Dr. Martin Luther King in his speech.

Michael Berg: "Because I’ve always admired Dr. King, because I think that that Dr. King, of all of the protestors, Dr. King … he’s the prototype. He’s what we all need to do, I mean, I know that Dr. King got much of his philosophy from Ghandi, but … and did such a … follower, he was a wonderful follower of Ghandi, and look what Ghandi did and look what Dr. King did, and Dr. King made such a difference in this country, a difference that people thought could never happen. And the questions that this young man here has been asking me (points to me), has been asked of many freedom fighters back in the 60’s. “Oh you can’t change people, you can’t do this, you can’t do that,” but Dr. King made it happen."

At what point did I mention anything even remotely analogous to something that might have been asked of representatives of the civil rights movement? Mr. Berg seemed uncomfortable with logistics or political realities that demand a security force in Iraq; he preferred to stick with vague platitudes about love and understanding. Imagine if the US left Iraq tomorrow, leaving a note that said, “Hey Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Ex-Baathists, Moderates and Extremists – please love each other. We’re sure that you can work this out; just wait for the magical international peacekeeping force (without weapons) to quickly coalesce and help you keep the peace." Moving on …

Michael Berg: "... and I was also struck by the analogy between Dr. King in Birmingham jail … and my son in the Iraqi jail … and Dr. King being murdered by … people full of hate, by a hate train, and I think … I’m not sure if these are his words or not, it just sounds true to Dr. King … and, and my son was killed, run over by this hate train and I believe … you want to turn that off for a second?" (points at my tape recorder)

Respecting his wishes, I switched off my digital recorder and immediately turned on the one in my head.

Michael Berg: "Let me put it to you this way, I don’t think that Dr. King’s murder was solved, and I don’t think that my son’s murder was solved, if you know what I’m saying ..."

No, Mr. Berg, what are you saying?

After a brief detour into Nick's humanitarian background in the third world, the Q and A session was concluded.

After the interview, Berg took a quick picture with some ... Zapatistas? Mexican Nationalists? ... suited up and ...

... led the march to Rumsfeld's house. Dizzy from the day’s circular logic, I went home.

My impressions of Mr. Berg? His arguments lacked any logic, logistical depth or detail, and he's visibly and understandably caught up in acute grief for his son. To his credit, he is very honest about the fact that his son completely disagreed with his views; he’s in no way misrepresenting Nick Berg. I'm not going to painstakingly read into his cryptic non-recorded statements about who he thinks killed Dr. King and/or his son; I'll let you draw your own conclusions. But let's be clear on one thing: Michael Berg isn't merely a grieving father driven to criticize the Bush Administration by his recent experience; he has well-established political views, and his antiwar statements should be examined in this appropriate context. Or not examined at all ...

In tomorrow's installment, we'll examine some of the political views of Mr. Berg's fellow members of ANSWER.

UPDATE: Citizen Smash interviews one of Michael Berg's fellow travelers.