It is hard for me to understand Michael Berg’s reaction. I saw Zarqawi as a kind of psychopath with the “fearless” type of personality attributed to “Iceman” Richard Kuklinski, the famed mob hitman. The veneer of religion and ideology seemed thin. All the attention and publicity given to him by PsyOps created a Zarqawi bubble where for a couple of years he was building up followers, aligning with Iraqi insurgents, murdering Shia and anyone cooperating with the U.S. with panache and aplomb. Then somebody tipped off the U.S. and got him blown to hell. Who did it? My theory is it was bin Laden. I mean, the guy had become a embarassment. I couldn’t help but cheer, right along Bush, bin Laden, the Iraqi government, the very civilized prime minister of Denmark, and all the rest of the world. Yes, it was a moment of world harmony, and it was like the only sour note was Michael Berg (and Zarqawi’s family, of course). I thought to myself, come on, this can’t be! This guy was a dangerous maniac. How can you call his death a tragedy? His life was a tragedy, not his death. His death was a blessing.

But of course, PsyOps no doubt planned it this way when they gave Zarqawi all that free publicity. Bush has gotten a good boost in the polls. With Karl Rove avoiding the Wilson frog march, Republican political fortunes are on the mend! And Michael Berg was, after all, so right not to add to that propaganda victory.

What was Nicholas Berg doing in Iraq in the first place? What was his business there? Wasn’t he traveling the Iraqi countryside ALONE after being warned by the U.S. military that it was dangerous? (As if anyone in Iraq had to be told that.)

And why does Nicholas Berg’s death get so much more continuing attention than the death of any one of the 2500 military personnel who has lost his/her life in Iraq?

The military people who lost their lives in Iraq had to be there. Nicholas Berg did not. He was voluntarily where he should not have been for some unknown reason. What was his reason?