This page was last updated on August 28, 2004.

Here’s a question for Mr. Piroli.  When The Nation – a left-leaning magazine – published an article in 1996 questioning Bob Dole’s WWII service, did you write a column decrying the “character assassination?”¹  The Nation wasn’t the only media outlet to take shots at Dole’s service.

Earlier in 2004, Democrats said only those who served in combat could question Mr. Kerry’s national security record.  Now that sailors who actually served with Kerry are leveling criticism, the Kerry campaign has attempted to shut them up.

John Edwards said, “If you have any question about what John Kerry’s made of, just spend three minutes with the men who served with him.”  Now that people are doing just that, we find Mr. Edwards apparently meant only those men hand-picked by the Kerry campaign.  Kerry supporters automatically brand as liars any vets who don’t buy into the Kerry story.

One last observation.  When the Vietnam War turned unpopular – not that any war is “popular,” it was the Democrat party that led the antiwar movement.  I had no problem with an antiwar movement, just the tactics.  Part of the strategy was to demonize the servicemen themselves to hurt morale.  John Kerry’s testimony before Congress is only one example.  I remember how our soldiers were called “baby killers.”  Now, though, the Democrat party leadership wants us to believe they believe Vietnam service was honorable.  That’s pathetic.  To be clear, I don’t accuse Mr. Piroli of this behavior because I have no knowledge of his actions at the time.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“I try to stay away from political commentary.  I’m more comfortable with other subjects that deal with life in our county, past and present, even though I could write every week about this administration and its blunders.

[RWC] I get a kick out of Mr. Piroli.  He constantly claims he doesn’t like to write politically charged pieces, yet this is at least the fourth such article in the last four months.  I don’t know if he deserves credit for so frequently overcoming his “reluctance” to write fact-deficient political commentary, or admonishment for believing we are so gullible.

“When I do, it’s usually to respond to letters to the editor that support this president.  He deserves praise because on his watch we have not been attacked in our nation since Sept. 11, 2001.

[RWC] If you think Mr. Piroli truly believes President Bush deserves credit for anything good, I have a bridge to sell you.  This statement is a transparent attempt to make us believe Mr. Piroli is open minded.

“Most of that should be credited to the strikes on al-Qaida in Afghanistan.  However, all that good work has been diluted because of his and his supporters’ obsession with abandoning the war on terrorism to attack Iraq.  This happened on his watch, and he takes no blame for it.”

[RWC] What Mr. Piroli giveth in the prior paragraph, he taketh away in this one.

The war in Iraq is a battle in the war on terrorism.  You fight where the enemy is.  Does Mr. Piroli believe we should not have fought in France during WWII since Germany was the real enemy?

“He cited weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorists, which proved to be false.  No weapons have been found, and it’s rather clear that terrorists are being arrested all over the world but not in Iraq.  There should have been no rush in making the decision that plunged us into a situation that has worsened since we overcame that token opposition.  More tactful people have said we were misled, but the longer this goes on it’s quite clear that we were deliberately lied to.  Those who have suffered the most because of this are our men and women in Iraq.”

[RWC] It is true we have not yet found the volume of WMD we expected, but our soldiers were attacked earlier this year by shells containing mustard gas and sarin.  Are we to believe these are the only chemical weapons in Iraq?  Regarding ties to terrorism, just read the 9/11 Commission reports.  Though there has been no evidence of Iraq/al-Qaida collaboration on 9/11, the proof of Iraqi ties to terrorism is voluminous.  Remember, the Bush administration said all along there was no proof of Iraq/al-Qaida collaboration on 9/11.

Regarding “terrorists are being arrested all over the world but not in Iraq,” that’s because the Iraqis and the coalition are killing terrorists in Iraq.  You don’t arrest dead terrorists.  Do we want arrested terrorists, or dead terrorists?

“Rush in making the decision?”  Is 12+ months – 12 years, actually – a rush?  Does Mr. Piroli forget all the diplomatic wrangling that went on for month after month?  Remember the United Nations resolutions?  The United Nations inspections?  Does he believe the coalition forces just magically appeared on the borders of Iraq without months of planning and buildup?

“Token opposition?”  Tell that to the families of those who died as a result of “token opposition.”  It may appear “token” to some of us here in the safety of the United States, but it certainly was not token to those who took enemy fire.

Has Mr. Piroli ignored every report issued on pre-war intelligence when he claims, “we were deliberately lied to?”  Every report makes it clear any problems were with the intelligence gathered, not the policymakers who used it.  If he claims any credible source contradicts this statement, I ask Mr. Piroli to provide that proof.  By the way, just about all of the Democrats in Congress made exactly the same claims about Iraq as the Bush administration and they saw the same intelligence reports.  These claims went all the way back to the Clinton administration.  Has Mr. Piroli claimed these Democrats lied?

Finally, when recently asked if he would still vote for the Iraq War resolution knowing what he knows now, John Kerry said “yes.”

“We’ve lost more than 942 people, and 6,000, many of whom will be disabled for life, were wounded.  Now we are told we’re there to give Iraqis democracy, something they don’t seem too keen on.

[RWC] It’s a popular liberal fantasy, but the Iraq War was not just about WMD, though it certainly was/is a primary concern.  Check House Joint Resolution 114 (Iraq War resolution) for proof.

Where does Mr. Piroli get the idea Iraqi aren’t “keen” on democracy?  Must the desire be unanimous or it doesn’t count?  Did the citizens of Germany and Japan unanimously support democracy?  Guess what, go to Germany and Japan and I’ll bet you’ll find people who would welcome the return of Hitler and Hirohito.

“We hear the words flip-flopper used in this election.  I have three pages of Bush’s flip-flops from not getting into nation-building to our presence in Iraq, and from trying to stop the creation of a 9/11 commission to making an endorsement in the Rose Garden of their report.

[RWC] It’s important to note that “flip-flopping” is not simply changing your mind occasionally.  Any reasonable person changes his mind from time to time.  A flip-flopper is a person who can rarely make up his mind on any issue and stick with it.  We need to remember liberals also refer to President Bush as stubborn because he takes a position and sticks with it.  In my mind, you can’t be stubborn and a flip-flopper.

Let’s see the three pages and I’ll bet most of the alleged flip-flops can be disproved.  For now, though, let’s look at these two alleged flip-flops.

If Mr. Piroli equates nation building with war, we have different understandings of the term.  To me, nation building refers to fixing messed up countries that pose no threat to us.  Our current work in Iraq is to rebuild a defeated enemy to make sure it is no longer a threat to our security.

Mr. Bush did oppose formation of the 9/11 Commission.  I’m not a mind reader, but I suspect it was because he felt it would distract attention from the war on terror and turn into a partisan witch-hunt to place blame.  As we all remember, that’s what happened during the public hearings.

Kerry is such a serial flip-flopper that I’ve heard him give speeches in which he reversed himself on an issue in the course of a single paragraph!

“A few weeks ago I wrote about the GI Bill of Rights and Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s foresight in that important legislation contrasting with the failure of this president to have any plans for a post-war Iraq.”

[RWC] My response to Mr. Piroli’s July 12^th column is here.

“I received a letter that said that I hated George Bush.  I sent a long reply, noting that I don’t hate him.  I just don’t respect his ability to be a president.  I also pointed out some of his domestic failures and the ill-advised invasion of Iraq.”

[RWC] I’ve received a couple of replies from Mr. Piroli about other topics.  They were long on accusation but devoid of verifiable fact.

“The writer’s answer was if the ‘pervert’ had done his job none of this would’ve happened.  In my reply I pointed out it was characteristic of some to not answer any questions or justify actions, but just use character assassination as they’ve done with critics Paul O’Neill, Richard Clarke, Bob Woodruff and now John Kerry.”

[RWC] For folks like Mr. Piroli, it is character assassination when Republicans attempt to discredit an attacker.  For example, it was “character assassination” when people produced documents and briefings showing Richard Clarke’s book and public 9/11 Commission testimony conflicted with his previous statements.

People were critical of Paul O’Neill after he was the source for a book bashing the Bush administration; that is true.  I don’t recall anything approaching character assassination.  It’s instructive to remember Mr. O’Neill backed away from many of the book’s claims.

I may be showing my ignorance, but I don’t know whom Bob Woodruff is.  An Internet search didn’t return any relevant hits.  If Mr. Piroli meant Bob Woodward, Woodward’s book about the Bush administration, Plan of Attack, remains on the Bush-Cheney ’04 suggested reading list.  That’s real character assassination! <g>

“It’s hard to imagine that there is a controversy on how Kerry, while serving in Vietnam, got his medals while the men who ducked and dodged getting into the conflict, George Bush and Dick Cheney, don’t have to explain the methods they used to stay out.  The accusers have no aversion to distorting the truth.”

[RWC] Time and time again President Bush and his campaign have had nothing but positive things to say about Kerry’s service.  Most recently, President Bush called Kerry’s service “admirable” and something of which to be “proud.”  If Mr. Piroli can provide proof to the contrary, let’s see it.  Compare that with Kerry himself questioning President Bush’s National Guard service.  The folks criticizing Kerry’s service are Vietnam combat veterans themselves.

President Bush served in the Air National Guard and Dick Cheney received student and marriage deferments.  Call that ducking and dodging if you like, but only if you voted for George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole against Bill Clinton.  Otherwise, you are exposed as a partisan hypocrite.

When Mr. Piroli wrote Bush and Cheney “don’t have to explain the methods they used to stay out,” was he serious?  Did he miss all the press conferences earlier this year asking for proof Mr. Bush wasn’t AWOL or a deserter?  Did he miss that Mr. Bush making public all his military records – including medical records – wasn’t “enough” and “only raised more questions?”

The accusers Mr. Piroli worries about are the 250+ Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT).  He worries because the Kerry campaign has already had to backtrack on previous claims Kerry made in books, speeches, et cetera when confronted by the SBVT.  So far, the SBVT has not had to backtrack on any of their allegations.

“They did it to Vietnam veterans - John McCain in South Carolina and triple amputee Max Cleland in Georgia.  Kerry volunteered for service, volunteered to go to Vietnam, volunteered for combat assignments and most of all volunteered to kill the enemies of the United States, if necessary.  I think those who served in Vietnam, who never lost a major battle, fought a courageous war without any support from our political leaders.  That war ended because people on the home front, led by the protestors, including Kerry and other Vietnam vets, brought pressure to bear on the White House.  Our troops in Iraq are having the same experience.”

[RWC] I get a kick out of Democrats complaining of McCain’s treatment by fringe wackos in one state in the 2000 primary.  Does Mr. Piroli really expect us to believe he cares about how a Republican was treated?  As I mentioned above, were Democrats concerned in 1996 when people tried to denigrate Bob Dole’s service?  No.  Would Mr. Piroli be so concerned if Mr. Kerry were running against John McCain?

Regarding Max Cleland, that’s a myth Mr. Piroli and Democrats have been pushing since 2002.  When he ran for re-election in 2002 against four-term Representative Saxby Chambliss, Cleland’s liberal voting record did him in.  Democrats, however, like to claim Cleland lost because Republicans questioned his patriotism.  This has become the standard Democrat response when you disagree with them on national security issues.  The reason for the claim was an ad criticizing Cleland for claiming to support a homeland security bill when he actually kept voting against it.  In no way did the ad question Cleland’s patriotism.  Don’t take my word for it.  You can see the ad here.  You will need RealOne Player installed to view the ad.  Cleland’s campaign outspent his opponent by 36% ($2.7 million).

Kerry enlisted in the Naval Reserves (inactive), not the Navy, after he applied for and was denied a deferment.²  According to his supporters, Kerry chose the Reserves because it reduced the risk of seeing combat.³  When he volunteered for Swift boat service, he didn’t expect combat.  Kerry wrote in 1986, “When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war.  They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that’s what I thought I was going to be doing.  Although I wanted to see for myself what was going on, I didn’t really want to get involved in the war.”⁴  The inland combat nature of Swift boats didn’t occur until after Kerry got his transfer.

Does any of this make Kerry’s service less than honorable?  Of course not.  He deserves our respect and thanks for serving, just as President Bush has said repeatedly.  At the same time, we’re not talking about Sergeant York or Audie Murphy.

Mr. Piroli’s Vietnam memories are a little off.  If the servicemen didn’t have any support from political leaders, our men would have not been in Vietnam.  After all, these servicemen didn’t send themselves.  It is true some political leaders didn’t support the war, but it’s wrong to say none did.

Regarding Kerry’s postwar anti-war antics, I view his actions as disgraceful.  We now know most of his claims at the time were false and he knew it.  Some of his “eyewitness” reports were made by men who had never been in Vietnam.  To defend his conduct, Kerry now says some of his remarks were “over the top,” a consequence of his youth.  I don’t know about you, but I expect more of a 27-year old military officer with combat experience.

Do we want a president who would sell out his “Band of Brothers” to further his political career?

How can Mr. Piroli claim our troops in Iraq are having the same experience as those in Vietnam?  What is the basis for this claim?

“How do we bring them home?”

[RWC] As should be the goal for all wars, our service men and women should come home only after we achieve our goals.  It’s a little easier for me to say because I have neither family nor friends in harm’s way, but it’s true nonetheless.

1. Dole's War Record; Robert B. Ellis; The Nation; August 12/19, 1996.

2. Revealed: how ‘war hero’ Kerry tried to put off Vietnam military duty; Charles Laurence; telegraph.co.uk; March 7, 2004.

3. Kerry in Vietnam: Daring, doubt; Stephen Braun, Los Angeles Times; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; August 8, 2004.

4. Heroism, and growing concern about war; Michael Kranish; The Boston Globe; June 16, 2003;

© 2004 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.