Out of Line on Nick Berg: Letter to John Grogan, Philadelphia Inquirer Columnist

"Thank you would have been a good start."

Poppycock, Mr.Grogan. Poppycock.

Let's work backwards.
Why was Nick Berg in Iraq? He was seeking to build cell-phone infrastructure as part of what was to be a proftable US occupation and reconstruction effort.

Why was there to be a profitable occupation? Because Mr. Bush and his administration chose to start a war in Iraq, telling us that the Iraqis would meet us with rosewater and candies. The oil revenue would pay for everything. Opportunities for American businesses!

If Mr. Bush hadn't started a war of choice in Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, Nick Berg would never have been in Iraq to begin with.

Had Nick Berg not been in Iraq, he would likely have not been beheaded.

Your suggestion is akin to saying the Peter family owes a "Thank you" to Susanna Goihman for putting flowers on their daughter's grave or for donating money to MADD.

Furthermore, although I am no fan of Mr. Zarqawi, or fundamentalists of any stripe, or his tactics it is entirely accurate to call people fighting against an occupying army "resistance fighters." You may not agree with their cause, but that is exactly what they are doing. The majority of the guerillas in Iraq are Iraqis: they are resisting occupation, the same way their ancestors resisted the British last century.

Mr. Bush's decision to start a war is inextricably linked to Berg's death. To suggest that Michael Berg owes the instigators of this war, which we now know was started under completely false premises, any gratitude at all is outrageous. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Stick to writing about your dog.

Brendan Skwire