Gino Piroli – 10/23/06

This page was last updated on October 23, 2006.

Don’t compare Iraq with World War II; Gino Piroli; Beaver County Times; October 23, 2006.

This is the second column since August in which Mr. Piroli expresses displeasure with any comparisons of Iraq and World War II.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject column.

“In the high-profile and important election we are approaching in a few weeks it is understandable that candidates aren’t always truthful on positions they believe can help their candidacy.

“There are two issues that I have problems with. One is when candidates, certain news outlets and party hacks try to make comparisons with our unwarranted invasion of Iraq to the situations in World War II. It’s an insult to everyone from that WW II era, those involved on the homefront as well as those who served in the military at that time.”

[RWC] When Mr. Piroli refers to “candidates, certain news outlets and party hacks,” why doesn’t he name names and provide the quotes?

Note Mr. Piroli doesn’t do us the courtesy of explaining why our invasion of Iraq was “unwarranted.”

Why is a comparison to WW II “an insult to … those who served in the military at that time?” Does Mr. Piroli believe today’s volunteers don’t match up to yesteryear’s conscripts and volunteers?

“That conflict began for us with the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. We knew who the enemy was, and there wasn’t a campaign to control the world, but primarily to save it from the ambitions of power hungry dictators. Their demise and our victory achieved those aims.”

[RWC] Why do folks seem compelled to refer to Pearl Harbor as a “sneak attack?” Unless the attacker screws up, aren’t all attacks sneak attacks?

Regarding the second sentence, how does that differ from today? After, we know who the enemy is, we aren’t on “a campaign to control the world,” and we’re trying to save ourselves “from the ambitions of power hungry dictators.” If you don’t believe the “power hungry dictator” assessment, name a government run by Islamofascists that is not a dictatorship in practice if not in name.

“Our problems today began with the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York, which proved to be a greater disaster than Pearl Harbor because it happened in our homeland, and there was no central government or nation solely responsible.”

[RWC] “Our problems today began with the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center?” Is Mr. Piroli kidding? Our problems with Islamofascism go back at least as far as 1979.

For those whose memory is not what it should be, here is a brief recap.

· 1979: Muslims take over the U.S. embassy in Tehran and hold the 50+ Americans for 444 days.

· 1983: Hezbollah blows up the U.S. embassy in Beirut killing 17 Americans and 46 others.

· 1983: Hezbollah blows up the Marine barracks in Beirut killing 241 Americans.

· 1986: Libya blows up a nightclub in Berlin, killing two U.S. servicemen and injuring more than 50.

· 1988: Libya blows up Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 (189 Americans).

· 1993: World Trade Center - six dead civilians

· 1993: U.S. peacekeepers in Somalia - 18 dead soldiers

· 1996: Khobar Towers military barracks in Saudi Arabia - 19 dead soldiers

· 1998: On February 23^rd, Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States.

· 1998: U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania - 224 dead African civilians

· 2000: USS Cole - 17 dead sailors

· 2001: World Trade Center, Pentagon, and Shanksville, PA – approximately 3,000 dead civilians

Just out of curiosity, why didn’t Mr. Piroli refer to 9/11 as a “sneak attack?”

“So to try and make comparisons from this war to our past conflicts since Dec. 7, 1941, is irresponsible and a desperate attempt to justify what has been a failed policy.

“I’ll leave it to others better qualified to assess how and what we should do in Iraq, a war I opposed from the beginning. I’m really not sure what will be considered a victory there, but if it happens where is the next battlefield? There are many who wish us harm.

“The other issue that continues to be touted as an accomplishment is the Medicare Part D drug benefit. It’s rare that you find the respected magazine, Consumer Reports, examining a government program and critiquing it.”

[RWC] For all you Consumer Reports believers, it’s not the gospel. After it did a report in an area in which I had a great deal of expertise, I stopped giving the magazine any credibility.

It’s not surprising given Consumer Reports is published by Consumers Union, an advocacy group. In its own words, the Consumers Union “mission is to work for a fair, just, and safe marketplace for all consumers.” This may seem like an innocuous statement, but my experience is an organization that feels the need to talk about fairness and justice tends to lean to the left.

Since 2000, CU has spent about $2 million on lobbying expenses according to FEC data. When you spend that kind of money on lobbying, you have a political agenda.

“Contrary to other statements or literature you might receive, the magazine points out that seniors were initially helped by the new plan only to find themselves once again without any drug coverage. It all comes down to a term that most who applaud themselves for giving seniors a prescription drug program never use: ‘Filling the Medicare doughnut hole.’

“The magazine calls it the notorious gap in coverage under the Medicare prescription drug law. That’s the period after seniors and Medicare have first paid $2,250 and then the beneficiary has to pay the next $2,850 out of pocket before Medicare kicks in again.”

[RWC] Mr. Piroli writes as if the “donut hole” was hidden. This topic has been covered extensively since Medicare Part D passed in 2003.

“Estimates vary, but it seems that there will be millions of people who will fall into that hole.”

[RWC] Here’s what Mr. Piroli is complaining about. People who had no prescription drug coverage now have some coverage, but since the coverage is not total, that’s reason for sniping in Mr. Piroli’s mind. Using Mr. Piroli’s own “logic,” Socialist Security should be considered a failure because you can’t live a comfortable life on Socialist Security alone.

While Mr. Piroli whines about the “donut hole,” he fails to mention the program pays for 75% of drug costs below the “donut hole” and 95% above it.

As you know, I believe Medicare and Socialist Security should not exist at all. I made the comments above to illustrate the purely partisan nature of Mr. Piroli’s comments.

“There’s a bill in Congress that would allow Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry as the Veteran’s Administration and the Federal Employees Health Program can do. It would dramatically drop the price of drugs for the seniors. Let’s hope that Congress will act to benefit the seniors and not the pharmaceutical industry.”

[RWC] Regarding allowing “Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry,” a government program this large doesn’t negotiate. It sets the price it will pay and thus amounts to nothing more than coercion. To make up for the revenue lost to Medicare, those of us not on Medicare would have to pay higher prices.

“The magazine also has a page that names pharmacies that offer lower prices for drugs, especially the generic brands. Heading the list of pharmacies offering the lower cost is, surprisingly, Costco, followed by Wal-Mart and Target. You don’t have to be a member to shop at the Costco pharmacy.

“We’ve come to expect the usual rhetoric and stretching of the truth in our political campaigns, but these two subjects are not directed at a particular candidate or candidates. It’s just a reminder for the voters to try to separate the truth from the political garble.”

[RWC] “[N]ot directed at a particular candidate or candidates?” Yeah, right.