Untitled Document
Taking a Closer Look at the Stories Ignored by the Corporate Media
Donate | Fair Use Notice | Who We Are | Contact

NEWS
All News
9-11
Corporatism
Disaster in New Orleans
Economics
Environment
Globalization
Government / The Elite
Human Rights
International Affairs
Iraq War
London Bombing
Media
Police State / Military
Science / Health
Voting Integrity
War on Terrorism
Miscellaneous

COMMENTARY
All Commentaries
9-11
CIA
Corporatism
Economics
Government / The Elite
Imperialism
Iraq War
Media
Police State / Military
Science / Health
Voting Integrity
War on Terrorism

SEARCH/ARCHIVES
Advanced Search
View the Archives

E-mail this Link   Printer Friendly

MEDIA -
-

CNN cuts Inflammatory Interview with Michael Berg Re: Zarqawi

Posted in the database on Friday, June 09th, 2006 @ 17:02:55 MST (2193 views)
by Blake Fleetwood    The Centre for Research on Globalisation  

Untitled Document

This morning I watched CNN's Soledad O'Brien conduct an incredible interview with Michael Berg, the father of Nick Berg, who was beheaded by al-Zarqawi, but the most interesting and upsetting part of the interview was cut from further broadcasts on CNN later on in the day. They had Berg on many times, but they didn't have the following provocative thoughts. (SEE BELOW)

CNN must have considered the words too inflammatory to put on the mainstream media. They balanced the coverage with predictable interviews with other relatives of Zarqawi victims

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN: There is a theory that as they try to form some kind of government that, in fact, 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, that that's just 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 be the king of Iraq rather than Saddam Hussein?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We will see if these words see the light of day when Berg is interviewed by Larry King later tonight.

10:45 PM EST. Thursday 6/8

Larry King did not press Berg on these earlier comments. Berg was very eloquent. A real pacifist.

The amazing thing about what Berg said earlier is that 80% of the rest of the world agrees with him and thinks that Bush is worse than Saddam.

Saddam grew up in a culture of cruelty and mass murder. Bush came from a more civilized society, but comparing the number of innocent people killed, the results are about the same.



Go to Original Article >>>

The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of Looking Glass News. Click the disclaimer link below for more information.
Email: editor@lookingglassnews.org.

E-mail this Link   Printer Friendly




Untitled Document
Disclaimer
Donate | Fair Use Notice | Who We Are | Contact
Copyright 2005 Looking Glass News.