Nikola Drobac – 11/2/04

This page was last updated on November 2, 2004.

Show your true colors: Enlist; Nikola (Nick) Drobac; Beaver County Times; November 2, 2004.

This is the 11^th anti-Bush and/or anti-Republican rant by Mr. Drobac since July 1^st.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“If George W. Bush wins today’s election, I would hope that tomorrow all of those individuals between the ages of 18 and 45 who voted for Bush travel to the nearest military recruiting office and enlist into the military branch of service of their choice.

“If these voters really believe in Bush and support this Republican war in Iraq, then they have an obligation to not only talk the talk, but also walk the walk. They should join the military service of their choice and immediately volunteer for service in Iraq. It’s the Republican way.”

[RWC] “Republican war?” For the record, 39% of House Democrats and 58% of Senate Democrats voted for the Iraq War Resolution, including Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards.

On February 24, 2003, John Edwards said, “I mean, we have three different countries [Iran, Iraq, North Korea] that, while they all present serious problems for the United States – they’re dictatorships, they’re involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country. … And they do, in my judgment, present different threats. And I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat.”¹ President Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat, but John Edwards did.

“I know that I would feel a lot better about the war in Iraq if Bush’s daughters supported their fathers’ [sic] decision to go to war by volunteering for combat service. Even though Dick Cheney’s daughter is openly gay and may have disqualified herself because of her sexual preferences, I would feel better if someone, anyone, from the Cheney family were to volunteer for combat service in Iraq.”

[RWC] Why do I believe Mr. Drobac would feel no better even if all of the Bush and Cheney children were on the frontline? John Kerry voted for the Iraq War but Mr. Drobac apparently doesn’t believe the Kerry kids should volunteer for combat. Why not?

“There are many Democrats who have served or who are presently serving in Iraq but do not believe in this Republican war.”

[RWC] There are also Republicans who don’t believe in the Iraq mission. This is also true for Kosovo, a situation the Democrat Clinton administration got us into. Does Mr. Drobac encourage all Democrats who vote for Kerry to enlist for service in Kosovo? We’ve been in Kosovo since 1999 yet Mr. Drobac apparently has no problem with that action, a “unilateral” – using the Democrat definition of unilateral – action not approved by the United Nations.

“These Democrats want to have nothing to do with the mess that Bush has created. These Democrats joined the service before Bush became president and got caught in a bad situation.”

[RWC] So let me get this straight. If you are a Republican and you don’t believe in a war entered into by a Democrat president, you should not have to serve? For example, should Republicans have been exempt from World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War? Earth to Mr. Drobac. Our armed services serve the country, not the political party of the President.

According to a poll of its readers, the Military Times found active-duty personnel who responded to the poll favored President Bush 72% to 17% for Kerry. The figures for the Guard and Reserve respondents were 73% and 18%, respectively.² Using Mr. Drobac’s “logic,” does this mean over 72% of our armed forces are Republicans?

“Like many of the Democrats I have spoken to, we support the war against terrorism in Afghanistan. We support hunting down terrorists in Chechnya, Bosnia, Kosovo, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.”

[RWC] I doubt Mr. Drobac’s statement about Afghanistan. Though I don’t know about Mr. Drobac specifically, a lot of folks with beliefs like those of Mr. Drobac opposed military force against Afghanistan. These people now say they supported action against Afghanistan to give the appearance their opposition to action in Iraq is nonpartisan.

Using Mr. Drobac’s logic, why should we hunt down terrorists in any of the other countries he listed? To the best of my knowledge, none of these countries threatened U.S. national security.

Mr. Drobac is incredible. It’s OK to hunt down terrorists in just about any country except Iraq!

“We do not and will not support any war against any country that had nothing to do with Sept. 11, 2001, has no ties to al Qaeda, and has no weapons of mass destruction.”

[RWC] Let me get this straight. As long as a terrorist group has no ties to al-Qaida, it is OK?

Mr. Drobac appears to make an exception to his rule for Iraq. Every “post mortem” intelligence report issued this year showed non-operational Iraqi ties to al-Qaida, the presence of al-Qaida and al-Qaida related terrorist groups in Iraq prior to the war, and American soldiers were attacked in May 2004 with shells containing mustard gas and sarin. Despite meeting two of three of Mr. Drobac’s criteria, Mr. Drobac still opposes the Iraq operation.

1. CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer; CNN.com; February 24, 2003.

2. Whose Military Vote?; Peter D. Feaver; The Washington Post; October 12, 2004.