But how DARE he blame his son's death on the Bush Administration. How DARE he say that Al-Queda is "possibly" as bad as Bush and Rumsfeld. How DARE he say that the Bush Administration did not protect his son.
His son was in Iraq to make money. His son was there by himself. The Administration has said numerous times that it is not safe to be in Iraq, yet Nick Berg chose to go there & stay there. The State Department tried to get him on a flight out of Iraq.
If your son goes to a dangerous place like Iraq to make money, what the heck is Bush supposed to do to protect him? And you want to say that just possibly Al-Queda is as bad as Bush? Al Queda who killed 3000 innocent people 3 years ago? Al-Queda who kills in the name of "god"? Al-Queda who has such a warped sense of what is right that they think they are doing the world some moral favor? Give me a break!
I'm not saying the Bush Administration is perfect. They aren't. But in no way did they cause the death of his son. And then Michael Berg wants to know if Al-Queda did indeed offer to trade his son for some prisoners from Abu Grahib? Why? Have we ever negotiated with terrorists? No and we never will.
I just find it despicable that he is turning his son's death into a political situation.
posted by Chris O. @ 5/14/2004 07:50:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home