Whenever anyone brings up the questions about the Berg video,

all Congress people and the military evade the questions. No one has come out yet to discredit even the "theories" This tells me, we must be on to something or else administration officials would have been all over this and by now laid to rest the so-called "conspiracy theories."

The day after it was linked to Buck House,
it vanished from all the newspapers.

I fear it is far from over

They probably raided Chalabis offices as a major diversion. But the Berg incident, if any one of the theories is true and can be proved, coupled with the outing of Wilson's wife should be enough to begin impeachment of the entire cabal.

I mean i've looked at some of the evidence--some of which raises questions, and some of which is explaniable, but I haven't seen a really good theory on why the White House would want Nick Berg dead.

If it's to distract us from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, well, it hasn't worked. Plus if they wanted to do that, I think they would have picked a victim with less baggage.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

as are we all to the BFEE. They thought it would deflect the Abu Ghraib controversy, but they botched it. It screamed distraction. Sure it enraged the enraged even more, but, in a miscalculation by the BFEE, it did not sway many anti-war advocates. It simply reinforced the argument for LIHOP/MIHOP. Mercifully the BFEE has scaled back their murderous rampage from 3000 Americans in New York to 1 poor guy in Iraq. Maybe they will stop now, but I doubt it.

They did not want Nick Berg dead, though many freepers want his father dead. He was just conveniently found in their clutches without a trace. They would have grabbed anyone who was there independently.

So are you alleging that the BFEE killed Nick Berg or not? Or are you alleging that they just let him go in such a way as to ensure he was picked up by the Al-Queada bunch?

The rest of your theory reads like, "They did it because they are evil." Well, I'm not going to argue that they aren't evil, but that's not really an explanation.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

What we've learned about Berg's disquieting connection to Moussaoui, his investigation pre-9/11 for links to al Qaeda, the fact his last "friend" to see him was a shady Iraqi business partner and pal of Wolfowitz with links to Russian Mafia, suggests to me there was a reason to have him dead beyond taking the heat off Rumsfeld and stoking the bloodlust.

His death was exploited for psyops value. But it's not why he was murdered. Why he was, we don't know.

Some of this theory seems to amount to "Well we don't know any of the specifics, but we're sure Bush is guilty!"

I'm still asking questions.

But you're wrong: we do know many of the specifics, and they're damn troubling.

the US media seems to run faster away from the story. It's proving to be a dark place they don't want to go.

>No one has come out yet to discredit even the "theories"

The burden falls on those proposing the theory to prove or disprove it. No real evidence has been presented to back up any of these theories. They are all based upon "unanswered questions" rather than supporting evidence. Most of the time, the questions themselves are invalid (muslims wearing gold, folding of head scarves, WHITE PLASTIC CHAIR, etc, etc, etc.)

To my mind, there are two unanswered questions here that are worth considering and investigating:

1) Why the hell did Mossaui(sp?) have this dude's e-mail address?
2) What is the deal with him being in captivity - who held him, why, and for how long.

The media *has* picked up these stories. And it isn't that these two questions haven't been "answered." They have - by people who can't possibly be trusted to tell the truth. But there's really no evidence available to the public that contradicts what Ashcroft, etc. have said (because if such evidence exists, they're the ones who have it!) And you can't expect the media to go wildly speculating about this like we do here. The simple truth, whether you want to accept it or not, is that the vast majority of the American public, and the media that serves them is satisfied that it knows what happened - that Berg was killed by terrorists as retaliation for the abuses at Abu Grahib (personally I think he was killed because terrorists like killing Americans to begin with, and the whole thing about retribution-for-abuse was just gravy to them) They are satisfied because it's a completely plausible scenario (it's not like this would be the first time some terrorists have killed an American) and there really isn't any evidence to back up the opposing theories. Given enough study, you can come up with tons of spurious "unanswered questions" in any story. And no amout of yelling about "you drank the bush kool-aid and beleived the official version" is going to bring one damn shred of evidence to light.

Look, I understand that it's fun to play junior investigator. Hell, I do a little of it now and again. But is it REALLY NECESSARY for us to have yet another goddamn thread on this topic? There are literally over 100 Berg threads in DU general discussion right now. Couldn't you have posted in one of those? I personally think it's disgusting that we here seem to have taken the tragic death of a human being and turned it into a pissing contest to see who can come up with the hokiest "inconsistency" in the story. It isn't *what* is being done that's disturbing, it's *how* it's being done - the mentality behind the actions. Everybody wants to be the guy (or gal) who cracks the case. So they all post their own thread (frequently in all caps) to push their own pet theory. These threads amount to little more than vanity posts. It's getting really tiring. Could we all please, please, please try to confine this discussion to one of the several jillion existing threads on this topic?