Nikola Drobac – 3/17/05

This page was last updated on March 19, 2005.

Trying to scare us again; Nikola (Nick) Drobac; Beaver County Times; March 17, 2005.

This is the 14^th anti-Bush and/or anti-Republican rant by Mr. Drobac since July 1, 2004. As usual, the letter is factually challenged.

This is the second letter from Mr. Drobac on Socialist Security since February 27^th. The first was entitled “Retirement could be illusory.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“Before the start of the war in Iraq, chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix told the world that Iraq had no WMDs.”

[RWC] This claim is untrue. Indeed, not long before the war the inspectors found prohibited weapons in the form of hidden missiles whose range violated various U.N. resolutions. Further, Mr. Blix reported Iraq’s WMD reports were fraudulent and incomplete. There was no way Mr. Blix could credibly claim there were no WMD when he acknowledged the Iraqi reports were fraudulent and incomplete and Iraq’s inspection cooperation was long on process but short on substance. To this date, there remains a discrepancy between the WMD that was inventoried after the Gulf War in 1991 and the WMD confirmed destroyed. In March 2003, the U.N reported 10,000 liters of Iraqi anthrax were unaccounted for. Given Saddam Hussein’s record, would it have been prudent to believe WMD inventory discrepancies were simply accounting errors?

Mr. Drobac also forgets the U.N. Security Council unanimously agreed Iraq was in material breach of various WMD resolutions when it approved Resolution 1441 (2002).

“George W. Bush did not listen. Instead, Bush and his Republican disciples frightened Americans into believing that there was a crisis when none existed. Before the war started, Bush was also told that Saddam Hussein had no ties to al-Qaeda and was not involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, tragedy. However, Bush started the war in Iraq, thereby making a bad situation worse.”

[RWC] Was John Kerry’s running mate – former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) – a “Republican disciple?” 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.” President Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat, but John Edwards did.

I’m sure it was an honest omission – not, but Mr. Drobac failed to mention Congress saw the same Iraq information as President Bush and most of Congress came to the same conclusion, including the 39% of House Democrats and the 58% of Senate Democrats who voted for the Iraq War Resolution. Were all these Democrats really “Republican disciples?”

The second sentence mixes truth with a falsehood. It’s true we believed Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks. President Bush never claimed otherwise.

I don’t know if anyone credible told President Bush there were no Iraq/al-Qaeda ties. The Clinton administration claimed in 1999 there were ties between Iraq and Osama bin Laden when the Clinton administration sent cruise missiles to destroy a pharmaceuticals plant in Sudan. The Clinton administration believed the plant financed by bin Laden was producing VX nerve gas with help from Iraqi chemical weapon experts. Various 9/11 and Iraq War “post mortem” reports also supported the claim of Iraq/al-Qaeda ties, though the ties were not of the operational kind.

“On Feb. 17, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said that Social Security is not in crisis, as President Bush has declared. Again, Bush is not listening.”

[RWC] Mr. Drobac deliberately omitted the context of Mr. Greenspan’s comment. Here is an excerpt from a CNN/Reuters article covering this topic.

“In response to a question from the House Financial Services Committee about why the system was in crisis, Greenspan began to answer: ‘The crisis today is largely because...’

“But a congressman interrupted to ask: ‘You agree with the president it is a crisis, today?’

“Greenspan then rephrased his reply.

“‘The word crisis depends on in what terms. That we have a very serious problem with the existing structure is what I would stipulate. The terms of how you describe it are far less important than defining what it is,’ he said.

“He said he deliberately avoids using the term ‘crisis’ to describe the problems facing Social Security and Medicare because their issues are not imminent.

“‘Crisis to me usually refers to something which is going to happen tomorrow or is on the edge of going into a very serious change. That is not going to happen in either Social Security or Medicare over the next several years,’ he said.”¹

Mr. Greenspan’s comment comes across a lot different when you have an accurate quote and you have it in context, doesn’t it?

I like the way Art Linkletter answered a question on this topic. Linkletter said, “If your doctor told you that the colonoscopy you just had revealed a small cancer which is going to kill you in 25 years, I’ll bet you’d consider yourself in crisis right now, wouldn’t you?”

“Bush admitted that privatization will not make the Social Security system solvent. Like the war in Iraq, the Bush plan for Social Security will only make a bad situation worse.”

[RWC] First, though personal accounts alone won’t make Socialist Security solvent, they are an important part of trying to rescue Socialist Security. Second, President Bush has not presented a full-blown plan yet so Mr. Drobac can’t truthfully say “the Bush plan for Social Security will only make a bad situation worse.” Why do socialists fear personal accounts so much? What is Mr. Drobac’s plan?

You should find it curious Mr. Drobac didn’t mention the recommendations of the bi-partisan President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security included personal accounts. Refer to my critique of “Retirement could be illusory” for more details.

“However, Bush and his Republican disciples are visiting 60 cities in 60 days in an effort to frighten Americans about another crisis that only exists in the mind of one George W. Bush.”

[RWC] Mr. Drobac should speak with his Democrat mentors, or at least study recent history. In the late 1990s, the Democrat mantra was “Save Socialist Security first.” You don’t have to believe me. Refer to footnotes 2 – 4 below. Since nothing has been done to Socialist Security since the early 1990s, were Democrats lying in the late 1990s or are they lying now? Democrats who want us to believe Socialist Security isn’t in dire straits today apparently expect us to believe problems that existed in 1998/1999 magically disappeared.

Democrats are even inconsistent in the present. Just several weeks ago Democrat after Democrat claimed Socialist Security had no solvency problem. Today, Democrats say they will work to rescue Socialist Security if President Bush drops the proposal for personal accounts. If there were no Socialist Security solvency problems, why would Democrats now claim to want to address the allegedly non-existent problems? This inconsistency is the result of lying brought on by blind partisanship.

I get a kick out of socialists who accuse Republicans of trying to frighten people. Remember, it’s Democrats who tell senior citizens that President Bush wants to take away or severely cut their Socialist Security benefits. It was Democrats who claimed black churches would burn if we voted for Republicans. It was Democrats who tried to scare voters into believing a vote for President Bush was a vote for a theocracy. It was Democrats who tried to scare voters into believing a draft was imminent if we re-elected President Bush. It was Democrats – led by John Kerry – who claimed it was too dangerous for elections in Iraq. It was Democrats who claimed President Reagan’s strength in the face of the Soviet Union would result in nuclear war. It’s Democrats who constantly refer to conservatives as Nazis. The examples go on and on.

Finally, note that not once in his two recent letters did Mr. Drobac propose any solutions for Socialist Security. All he did was bash and try to link Socialist Security reform with Iraq.

1. Greenspan: Social Security in trouble; CNN/Reuters; February 17, 2005.

2. “Save Social Security First”?; Byron York; National Review; January 14, 2005.

3. Who Will Rescue Social Security?; David S. Broder; The Washington Post; November 29, 1998.

4. 1999 State of the Union Address; The Washington Post; January 19, 1999.