This page was last updated on June 18, 2004.

Invasion of Iraq wrong; lives lost go unrecognized; Gino Piroli; Beaver County Times; April 26, 2004.

Below is a detailed critique of the above opinion column.  I also responded in a letter to the editor, but letters have a 300-word limit and this does not allow a thorough rebuttal.¹

“When reading some of the letters to the editor and a few e-mails I get, I wonder whether I’m living in the same country as the writers.  Do they pay any attention to what people with no obvious political motives - Paul O’Neill, Richard Clarke, John Dean or Bob Woodward - say?”

[RWC] “No obvious political motives?”  Mr. Piroli failed to mention:

• President Bush fired Paul O’Neill in December 2002.  Even so, O’Neill retreated from content of the book for which he was the principal source.  Bush critics hung their hat on a statement O’Neill made during a CBS 60 Minutes interview saying President Bush had contingency plans for Iraq early in his administration.  In a subsequent NBC interview, O’Neill said, “People are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration.  Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq.  I’m amazed that anyone would think that our government, on a continuing basis across political administrations, doesn’t do contingency planning and look at circumstances.”²

• Richard Clarke didn’t get a Homeland Security assignment he wanted and is on the record with diametrically opposed accounts of events.  I don’t know which Clarke story to believe.  In any case Mr. Clarke lied, either before or now.  In a “USA Today” poll, only 44% of respondents said they believed Mr. Clarke’s most recent claims.  A “Newsweek” poll showed 50% believed Mr. Clarke acted for personal reasons.  Only 25% believed he didn’t.

• I don’t know if John Dean opposes President Bush on ideology or if he is just anti-Bush.  A review of Dean columns back to 2000 indicates Bush-related topics were unfavorable to President Bush.  Dean also subscribes to the Gore beat Bush myth.

• I am not sure, but it appears Mr. Piroli made the same mistake as many other anti-Bush pundits and politicians.  He assumed Bob Woodward comments made during book promotion interviews reflected the book (“Plan of Attack”) content, but they did not. In fact, overall the Woodward book presents a positive view of the Bush administration and that is why it is on the Bush-Cheney ‘04 campaign suggested reading list.  It’s also worth noting President Bush gave Bob Woodward access to his administration to write the book, making sure anyone Woodward wanted to interview made time for Woodward.  That doesn’t sound like an administration with something to hide.

“I’m sure there’ll be letters that will attack the messengers, not the message, and I expect the same treatment.  Weapons inspector David Kay, appointed by President Bush, says that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”

[RWC] Mr. Piroli believes he will become a martyr for his opinions?  Interesting.

In addition to U.S. investigators not finding WMD yet, David Kay also testified before Congress saying,

“All I can say is if you read the total body of intelligence in the last 12 to 15 years that flowed on Iraq, I quite frankly think it would be hard to come to a conclusion other than Iraq was a gathering, serious threat to the world with regard to WMD.  I have said I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought.”

When asked if the Iraq War “was justified and enhanced the security of the United States and the world by removing Saddam Hussein from power,” Mr. Kay replied, “Absolutely.”

Iraq War critics liked to claim the Bush administration pressured the intelligence agencies into their WMD conclusions.  Mr. Kay testified, “I’ve never met an analyst who felt in this case with regard to these set of issues that there was any inappropriate pressure.”  Mr. Kay made it clear the problem was with the intelligence, not with the policy makers who used it.³

Why doesn’t Mr. Piroli bash the 39% of House Democrats and 58% of Senate Democrats who voted for the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War?⁴  Many of them saw the same intelligence reports as President Bush.  For that matter, why not bash former President Clinton?  During 2003, more than once President Clinton himself said he believed Iraq had WMD.⁵  What about the U.N. Security Council when it unanimously agreed Iraq had WMD, though the U.N. declined to do anything about them?

“Pat Buchanan, one of the few real conservatives around, says that ‘Iraq was a war of choice, not a war of necessity.  Saddam Hussein had no role in 9/11, no ties to al-Qaida, no WMDs.’”

[RWC] There are many more real conservatives than Mr. Piroli would like to believe and, surprise, we do not all think alike.  Pat Buchanan is entitled to his opinion, but he does not speak for all conservatives, real or otherwise.

My research indicates the Bush administration never claimed Hussein had a role in 9/11, but it’s tough to prove a negative.  That’s why our legal system requires proof of guilt, not proof of innocence.  VP Dick Cheney once said he didn’t know if there was a link, but I believe that’s it.  Regarding Iraq/al-Qaida ties, a 9/11 Commission report says they did exist.  Also, based on testimony before the 9/11 Commission, the Clinton administration claimed a link.  This believed link is what led to the bombing of the Sudan pharmaceutical factory in 1998 in retaliation for the U.S. embassy bombings.  The CIA reported Osama bin Laden had an ownership position in the factory and had met with Iraqi chemical weapon scientists.  The CIA believed the factory was producing VX nerve gas.

“Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry is accused of flip-flopping on the Iraq issues, but pay attention to what the president who took us to war now says.

“On Sept. 1, 2003, he said: ‘We’ve no evidence that Saddam was involved in 9/11.”

[RWC] Mr. Piroli implies the Bush administration at one time claimed Saddam Hussein had a hand in 9/11.  As mentioned above, the Bush administration never made this claim.  I’m sure President Bush is no saint -- no president can be, but liberals tend to put words in Mr. Bush’s mouth and then criticize him for them.  When you press liberals for proof of an alleged comment, they say something like, “but that’s what he meant.”

Mr. Piroli suggests President Bush changes his story, but most Democrats complain that he doesn’t and seek apologies.

“On Feb. 7, 2004, he said: ‘We haven’t found weapons of mass destruction.’

“Yet a majority of Americans say Saddam gave substantial support to al-Qaida and there are still those who believe there were weapons of mass destruction.  No wonder this president can manipulate the truth.”

[RWC] When you accuse someone of lying, you have a moral obligation to provide proof.  What proof does Mr. Piroli have that no one else has?

The issue Mr. Piroli dodges is what happened to the WMD inventoried in the early 1990s?  In March 2003, the UN reported there were 10,000 liters of Iraqi anthrax unaccounted for.  There are at least three possibilities as to what happened.

1. The early 1990s inventory numbers were overstated, but they were not disputed at the time.

2. Iraq destroyed the WMD but for some insane reason chose to withhold proof of destruction.

3. The WMD still exists somewhere, either inside Iraq or out.

I’d like to believe possibilities one and/or two are the explanation, but can we afford to make that assumption?  I don’t think so.

In his testimony before Congress, David Kay said,

“We’re also in a period in which we’ve had intelligence surprises in the proliferation area that go the other way.  The case of Iran, a nuclear program that the Iranians admit was 18 years old, that we underestimated and that, in fact, we didn’t discover.  It was discovered by a group of Iranian dissidents outside the country, who pointed the international community at the location.  The Libyan program recently discovered was far more extensive than was assessed prior to that.”³

Rather than bash President Bush for not finding WMD, we should try to find out what happened to it.  That’s what President Bush is doing.  If WMD is out there, it will be used.

“We’re not an informed electorate, nor are we interested in becoming informed.  Howard Dean was crucified for saying America is not better off with the capture of Saddam.  Are we?”

[RWC] Let’s see.  Saddam Hussein conducted an eight-year war with Iran in which he used chemical weapons.  Hussein used chemical weapons against his own population.  He invaded Kuwait.  He attempted to assassinate former President Bush #1.  He consistently fired on U.S. aircraft patrolling the Iraqi skies.  He actively pursued WMD and other illegal weapons.  He paid $25,000 rewards to the relatives of homicide bombers.  And on, and on, and on.  He can no longer do those things.  Yes, I think we’re safer, but we’ll never be completely safe.  It’s impossible in a free and open society.

“Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak predicted before the invasion that we now have one Osama bin Laden, but if we invade a Moslem country, we’ll have thousands of Osamas.  He also said last week that never have Americans been so hated by Arab nations.”

[RWC] We already had thousands of Osamas.  That is what the hate-filled madrasas have been producing for decades.  In case Mr. Piroli missed it, these nut cases are also attacking Muslim countries.

Does Mr. Piroli believe Arab countries liked the United States at one time?  I don’t care if Arab nations, or any nation, like the United States.  We do need to be respected, however.  Unfortunately, these countries respect one thing above all else, exercised power.

“There are many more issues with this president, but one I would like to address that depresses me every day it goes on is the invasion of Iraq. We’re losing precious American lives that this administration dishonors by not acknowledging their sacrifices.”

[RWC] What is Mr. Piroli talking about?  President Bush honors the military on a regular basis and makes personal hospital visits.  If Mr. Piroli is referring to the decade plus policy against showing pictures of returning coffins, that’s lame criticism.  The National Military Family Association supports this policy.  If Mr. Piroli is complaining that President Bush does not attend soldier funerals, that too is a lame complaint.  Can you imagine the circus a soldier’s funeral would turn into if a president attended?  Does anyone not believe the media frenzy would detract from the solemnity of a funeral?  Though the events are nowhere near comparable, that is why President and Mrs. Bush will not attend the college graduation ceremonies of their daughters this spring.  President Bush wanted the graduation ceremonies to be about the graduates, not him.

“We’re also spending astronomical sums of money that could be used to help our bankrupt cities, counties and states.”

[RWC] We’re going to blame the Iraq War for the wastefulness of local and state government?  It’s simple, spend less and spend wisely.

“We all applauded and supported the president after 9/11 when he went after al-Qaida in Afghanistan.  I’m sure that action has helped make us safer.  But before that mission was finished, he was sidetracked with his and the obsession of the ‘Vulcans’ - as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Wolfowitz have dubbed themselves - with invading Iraq.”

[RWC] Mr. Piroli has a short memory.  While there was a lot less opposition to going into Afghanistan, opposition existed.  Most of the protests were organized by the people who later led anti-Iraq protests.  We also heard comments like, “If the Soviet Union couldn’t defeat the Afghans in 10 years, what chance does the United States have?  We’re headed for another Vietnam.”

May we see proof of the Iraq obsession?  The fact that we are in Iraq is not proof of an obsession.  Mr. Piroli seems to forget we are in a war on terror, and terrorism knows no borders.  Without downplaying Afghanistan and Iraq, they are battles in the war on terrorism, not the war itself.  Thus Iraq is a key battle, not a sidetrack.

“Last July, before we learned about the absence of WMDs and ties to terror, I questioned why we were in Iraq and was called unpatriotic.  The reasons for the action keep changing; now it’s to free the Iraqi people.  There are numerous evil regimes in the world, so where do we go next?”

[RWC] No ties to terror?  A quick read of even liberal news sources reveals this is a false claim.  If training camps and $25,000 rewards to homicide bomber relatives weren’t terrorism support, what was?  Did Mr. Piroli forget that the convicted chief conspirator of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Ramzi Yousef, reached the United States with an Iraqi passport?  Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, is an uncle of Yousef.  The bomb maker -– Abdul Rahman Yasin (an American citizen) -– ended up in Iraq after the bombing.

When Mr. Piroli claims he was called unpatriotic, Sen. Kerry’s response to criticism makes me skeptical.  Sen. Kerry’s national security record cannot be criticized without him claiming you questioned his patriotism.  That also appears to be the position of Democrat leadership in general.  Respectfully questioning our involvement in Iraq is no reason to question a person’s patriotism.  I do not question Mr. Piroli’s patriotism; I do not know him.  I only question his judgment as expressed in his political opinion columns.

Regarding the reasons for our actions, perhaps Mr. Piroli should read “House Joint Resolution 114 - Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002” if he hasn’t already.  WMD was never the sole reason for the Iraq War.  Obviously it was an important element, perhaps even the most important element, but certainly not the only reason.

“In hindsight, everyone knew our armies would easily win the war, but little did we know that those geniuses in government had no plans after the victory. Our servicemen and the Iraqi people are paying the price. It looks as if we’ll be there a long, long time.”

[RWC] “Everyone knew our armies would easily win the war?”  Yeah, sure.  I guess Mr. Piroli missed all the doom-and-gloom commentators, generals, politicians, and pundits on ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC.

The “no plan for peace” is an old and baseless claim.  How can anyone look at the improvements in Iraq after one year and claim there was no plan?  This stuff does not happen by magic.  The Bush administration always said the Iraq mission would be long and difficult.  No matter how good your plan, it is no guarantee of clear sailing.  The enemy has a vote and he rarely cooperates.

“I was also criticized for saying he would milk 9/11 through the elections in 2004, which he’s doing.  I do want to correct one statement I made then.  I said I had lived through 12 presidents, and he was the worst.  I didn’t give him his due credit.  I’ve lived through 14 presidents and he’s still the worst, and adding more ammunition each day to nail down that dubious honor.”

[RWC] Milking 9/11?  What does this mean?  Should we forget 9/11 and assume it was an anomaly?  If President Bush didn’t mention 9/11, Mr. Piroli would accuse the President of not taking the attack seriously.  Heck, Sen. Kerry invokes the Vietnam War at every turn -- he even has a campaign commercial showing old footage of him in Vietnam -- and it ended nearly 30 years ago.

Mr. Piroli says President Bush adds “more ammunition each day to nail down that dubious honor” of being the worst president of Mr. Piroli’s lifetime.  When will Mr. Piroli present that “ammunition” with credible substantiation?  All we have so far is mudslinging.

“I’ve tried to be objective and play down my true feelings, but it’s difficult when I look at his record.”

[RWC] “Objective?”  At least we know Mr. Piroli has a sense of humor.

“I consider myself a humanitarian, but I’m an American first and proud and humbled by the courage of our servicemen and mourn each loss of life on this ill-advised mission.”

[RWC] I feel bad when anyone dies in the line of duty, but I do not denigrate their sacrifice -- and that of their families and friends -- by disrespecting their mission.

1. Letter to the Editor - Columnist’s charges unfounded; Robin Cox; Beaver County Times; May 2, 2004.

2. O’Neill: ‘Frenzy’ distorted war plans account; CNN.com; January 14, 2004.

3. Hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee; Federal News Service; January 28, 2004.

4. Democrats On Iraq's WMD Programs; GOP.com; January 29, 2004.  Though I am sure liberals will not like the source, the quotes are accurate.

5. Clinton Claimed Last Year Saddam Had WMD; Carl Limbacher; NewsMax.com; January 9, 2004.

© 2004 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.