This page was last updated on July 4, 2004.

Why the June 30 handover?; Nikola (Nick) Drobac; Beaver County Times; July 1, 2004.

The ridiculous central theme is easily refuted by facts and logic.  In other words, you blow up these missives like this simply by telling the truth.

Mr. Drobac is one of the more venomous letter writers and doesn't let truth get in the way.  In one letter, he even hoped all Republicans would become destitute in their old age.

He appears to spam his letters to multiple papers, including newspapers in eastern Pennsylvania and Maryland.  Mr. Drobac appears to be a journeyman secondary school teacher who has taught in these locations.  I can only hope Mr. Drobac doesn't take his venom into classrooms.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

"Did you ever wonder how the Bush regime came up with the June 30 date to hand over power to an interim Iraqi government?"

[RWC] So original, referring to an elected administration as a "regime," as you would refer to a dictatorship.  This has become common language for liberals.  Technically its usage is correct, but we all know the message liberals try to convey when they use it.  Was the Clinton administration a regime?

"In 2002, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution that exempted American peacekeepers from international prosecution for war crimes.  The exemption was renewed in 2003 and is set to expire June 30.

"The Bush regime needs at least nine of 15 Security Council members to vote "yes" for the exemption to be renewed.

"As a result of the March 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq without U.N. Security Council approval and the abuse of prisoners by U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, many members of the Security Council openly expressed their unwillingness to vote to extend the resolution for a third time."

[RWC] It's too bad Mr. Drobac doesn't do the kind of research I hope he expects of his students.  When he says the United States didn't have U.N. approval to liberate Iraq, he ignores Resolution 1441 among others.¹  Here is the relevant excerpt from 1441.

"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,"

What does "all necessary means" sound like to you?  Looks like the United States and any other U.N. member had U.N. approval, not that I believe we should ever require a U.N. permission slip for anything, especially for our national security.

"Last week, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan asked Security Council members to oppose the exemption.  France, Germany, Spain and as many as six other countries indicated that they would abstain from voting.

"All of this means that after today, the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands, could prosecute George W. Bush and American troops for their involvement in Iraq or other parts of the world."

[RWC] Gee, there's a shock -- not.  Three anti-American and socialist countries that oppose the Iraq liberation said they would abstain.  Who would have thought?  France, Germany, and Syria abstained from the first exemption in 2002 and Kofi Annan has always opposed an exemption.

Once again, Mr. Drobac failed to do his research.  Along with other countries, including Iraq, the United States did not ratify the treaty setting up the ICC.  As a result, the ICC has no jurisdiction over events in Iraq.  Finally, even for those who participate in the ICC, it comes into play only when member countries refuse, or are unable, to prosecute their war crimes themselves.

In addition, the United States has signed bilateral agreements with 89 countries that bar any prosecution of American officials by the ICC and is pursuing more of these treaties.

"Now, June 30 starts to make sense.  And everybody thought that George W. Bush was stupid.  In an effort to justify the war, George W. Bush convinced less knowledgeable Americans that Iraq was a grave and growing threat to the nation's national security."

[RWC] Only stupid persons and liberals thought President Bush was stupid.  You see, liberals believe all conservatives -- and all persons who don't vote with liberals -- are stupid.  You'll also note Mr. Drobac says anyone who agreed with President Bush regarding Iraq was stupid ("less knowledgeable").  Not that I believe everyone in Congress is smart, but 39% of House Democrats and 58% of Senate Democrats voted for the Iraq Resolution (House Joint Resolution 114) and most had access to the same intelligence reports as President Bush.  Were they all "less knowledgeable?"

"George W. Bush stated that Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaida, was somehow involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, tragedy and had weapons of mass destruction.  It was all a big lie."

[RWC] The only person lying is Mr. Drobac.

Regarding the fairy tale that there were no Iraq/al-Qaida contacts, Mr. Drobac -- and all of us -- should read entire articles instead of only headlines.  Even The New York Times issued a "mea culpa" of sorts in a column by its "Public Editor."²  There have been hundreds of news articles since the mid-1990s chronicling Iraq/al-Qaida links.

Time and time again even the liberal press has had to admit the Bush administration never claimed or implied Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attack.  In fact, the Bush administration always stated there was no proof of Iraqi involvement.  This is an example of anti-Bush groups putting words in President Bush's mouth and then attacking him for them.

Regarding the tiresome "Bush lied about WMD" line, consider the following excerpt from Resolution 1441.¹

"Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,"

If President Bush lied about WMD, he had a lot of company, including the U.N., most Democrat congressmen, and former President Clinton.  Of course if all these people lied, what about the shells we found loaded with mustard gas and sarin?  At least two of those shells were used in attacks against U.S. soldiers during May 2004.

"Wouldn't it be great to see George W. Bush in a cell next to Slobodan Milosevic?"

[RWC] I don't know how to respond to hateful comments like this.  Mr. Drobac has someone who agrees with him, however.  In his first appearance before an Iraqi judge, Saddam Hussein said President Bush was the real criminal.  I learned a long time ago you need to be careful of the company you keep.

1. Resolution 1441 (2002); United Nations Security Council; November 8, 2002.

2. The Report, the Review and a Grandstand Play; Daniel Okrent; The New York Times; June 27, 2004.

© 2004 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.