With No Apologies, Let’s Move Out

Indeed, where’s the outrage?

With David Kay’s resignation, press interviews and Senate testimony, and the report issued earlier this month from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, disapproving of the decision to invade Iraq, we ve seen a renewed Democrat outrage and a seeming injection of credibility into their candidates issue-starved campaigns. (By the way what does Dean’s constant rant, “Take back the flag,” mean?) But the anti-war/anti-Bush coalition (for brevity, the AWAB’s) attacks on this administration s decision to wage what arguably is one of the most benevolent wars of liberation ever is really rage over Bush’s semantics and is amplified by an obsequious media ruse which has excerpted Kay’s statements to suit its agenda. And the press has largely omitted many of Kay’s statements such as, “I actually think what we learned during the inspection(s) is that Iraq was a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was before the war.”

Director Tenet’s Senate testimony corroborates Kay’s in that he referred to Iraqi programs aimed at developing nuclear, biologic, chemical weapons and moreover Hussein’s desire to deceive the first Gulf War victors as to how mature these programs were. Ultimately, the danger that this president had to confront was a surprise in the form of a more lethal attack than was 9/11. Based on the intelligence provided by the CIA and our allied intelligence agencies, together with the homicidal character of the Iraqi Dictator, the risk associated with leaving him in power was one this president was not willing to take.

The nature of intelligence gathering is that it is nearly always imperfect. As will any post-9/11 president, Bush is forced to use what information he has in waging a war that is far different and, in some ways, where our position is far more precarious than in any previous conflict. He has no certain road map in this campaign to stop an unknown number of stateless suicidal terrorists who have pronounced that they seek to deliver to our homeland the high-tech weapons that will destroy us. And what the AWAB’s won’t acknowledge is that, while prosecuting this war, Bush is also endeavoring to free a vast portion of the Islamic world from bondage. Plane loads of centrifuges and related nuclear weapons equipment are arriving this week from Libya, making good on Qadaffi’s promise to relinquish his WMD programs and opening the way for freer social and economic exchange for his citizens. What we may be witnessing is the unfolding of an epoch win/win, masterminded by the Bush Neocons. Will the continued prosecution of this enormous project be easy? Of course it won’t.

However, it seems very unlikely that history will smile upon today’s AWAB’s. They, for many reasons, have much to account for. One example is the simple fact that Bush s stewardship of the anti-terror program over these last two years since 9/11 has prevented the eventuation of a single new attack. With the arrest of Jose Padilla, we know that an attempt to detonate a dirty nuke inside a major U.S. city was thwarted. Undoubtedly, the many other attacks by militant Islamicists that have been prevented are still classified secrets and unknown to the general public. But rumors abound. It s disgraceful that the AWAB’s are so ungrateful. Partnering with Democrat candidates (other than Joe Liberman) AWAB editorialists across the country used the Carnegie condemnation and Kay’s inability to find the stockpiles of WMD’s as a validation for their renewed sense of outrage over the Iraq war.

An opposing outrage is also rising among those who understand the threat and have to suffer this fake, manufactured, perfidious anger continuously issued by not only large portions of the media, but Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, Madonna, and most of the Hollywood elite like Hussein’s shill, Sean Penn. Kay s statements and the Carnegie foundation’s assessment that the Bush Administration systematically misrepresented the stage of development of the Iraqi WMD programs both require careful and thorough reading. Carnegie has staked out the latest AWAB position where the coalition is now relegated to parsing words, decrying Bush lies that misrepresented the difference between an immediate versus a long-range threat. This new position apparently has replaced their former position that averred that there was no evidence of a Hussein link to terror. But where was their outrage with the Clinton administration officials, who in 1998 told us that Iraq s WMD programs necessitated four days of cruise missile attacks on Baghdad? And where was their outrage with the U.N. which issued 16 resolutions condemning Iraq for its WMD violations? Where is their outrage with the British, French, German, Russian intelligence services that all concurred that Hussein had his WMD programs in place up to the start of the war. Or with numerous Democrat luminaries like John Kerry who voted to cut our intelligence service budgets many times over the last twenty years? Or for that matter, Ron Dellums who vowed to take the CIA apart brick by brick? Or their outrage over the massive grave recently discovered in Southern Iraq where a significant portion of 180,000 murdered Kurds, men and boys, were rounded up and bused from their northern villages, shot and buried? And let me guess, the bulk of the anti-war crowd wasn’t all that outraged when the Clinton Administration and Wesley Clarke headed up NATO s bombing of Belgrade which killed 2,000 innocent Serbian civilians?

The reason the AWAB’s and those who re apparently running the Carnegie Endowment inspire equal and opposing outrage is that bin Laden has said that it is the duty of the true believers to acquire and use WMD’s against the infidel. And with their preoccupation with semantics, these partisan leftists are still trying to tell us we should be worried about the timing of WMD development!! Just what is an imminent threat, two years, three years out? Kay has repeatedly said there were WMD programs in Iraq that could have been easily restarted once the threat of inspections had been lifted. Bush s term was gathering threat, by the way. Who gives a damn anyway when we stop an enemy’s WMD programs, given that we’re talking about an unstable dangerous dictator and homicidal maniac who tried to assassinate a former U.S. president, murdered hundreds of thousands, gassed his own people, and is a known harborer of terrorist?! Does anyone recall the infamous terrorist Abu Nidal was found murdered in Baghdad? Afghan based al Qaeda operatives killed three thousand people with box cutters. Imagine the damage just a few Iraqi financed terrorist could do inside the U.S. with just 100 lbs of ricin poison gas? The AWAB’s are not worried about such trivia. Let’s be accurate. The anti-war crowd is really just anti-Bush and willing to do their part to undermine the war effort against terror until one of their own is running the country which is a chilling thought for hopefully a plurality of voters.

Much of the anti-war crowd has made clear they think Bush, the liar, is also a dumb frat boy. But, it’s becoming apparent that they and their allies have already been had and they don’t even know it yet. There is a memo, dated October 27, 2003, leaked to Fox News from the Defense Department’s Undersecretary, Douglas, Feith, and sent to the embattled Senate Intelligence Committee, the same committee where Democrats were exposed as falsifying secret war-related intelligence in an effort to hurt the president. The leaked memo contains 50 bullet points and runs to 16 pages but is a distillation of thousands of pages of documents uncovered in Iraqi intelligence service offices and compiled from the testimony of captured Afghan, Iraqi, and other foreign combatants. It not only links Hussein to Bin Laden abundantly but it expands that connection to include scary deadly weapons (SDW) procurement. Among the massively damning evidence against the anti-war/anti-Bush media and the Democrat presidential hopefuls is the following, “Ibn al Shaykh al Libi, a senior al Qaeda operative, said he was tasked to travel to Iraq in 1998 to establish a relationship with Iraqi Intelligence to obtain poisons and gases training—after the USS Cole bombing (in 2000), chemical and biological weapons training,all corroborated, verifiable, and usable in the 04 presidential campaign.

For the naïve AWAB’s, it gets worse. The investigation of an event like 9/11 will never be complete in our era. They cannot stop history from being written. Already, the massive evidence behind the above memo has connected 9/11 leader, Mohammed Atta, with the Prague-based Iraqi intelligence service. And more will be learned. Based now on highly corroborated evidence from numerous sources, Atta went to Prague four times, the last time in April of 2001. The only doubt that can be sown regarding these meetings is that the CIA and FBI cannot confirm or deny the final two meetings. Czech Interior Minister, Stanislav Gross, continues to stand by his information. (Even today, we have to rely on allied intelligence services because Church committee constraints put in place since the 70s have hobbled CIA capabilities.) The CIA will confirm that Atta s contacts in Prague were with Iraqi Intelligence Service and its station chief, Ahmed al Ani. It has confirmed that on his last visit in May of 2000, Atta s forged passport caused him to be denied entry to Czechoslovakia. Instead of flying back to the U.S., he flew to Germany and gained entry to the country by bus. A day after his last visit, Czech banking records prove that al Ani requested a transfer of $200,000 from Iraqi Intelligence to an account controlled by Atta in the U.S. Clinton s own CIA Director, James Woolsey who has looked at all this evidence has said publicly, Anyone who doesn t see the Hussein link to al Qaeda is delusional.

And speaking of hyped or faulty intelligence about which the AWAB s and Carnegie Endowment are so outraged, it was the Clinton Administration that told us that, if we didn’t remove the Serbian dictator, we would find mass graves throughout the southern Balkans. But those mass graves never materialized in the Balkans. But it was fine by the Bush haters for the U.S. to effect regime change in Serbia. The problem for AWAB’s is that Milosevic murdered far fewer of his own citizens than did Hussein and moreover, the Iraqi Butcher s liaison with terror, those who desire weapons of our mass destruction, will continue to be made public despite a good portion of the media s efforts to under report it. The AWAB’s and the sycophantic media s pronouncements, past and present, rather sadly reflect a shallow seditious hatred of the current administration, and serve only to divide the country, dampening our resolve and impugning our security, our military strength and our ability to preempt future attacks from our mortal enemy, militant Islam.

NOTE: An edited version of this article appeared on page D – 5 of the San Francisco Chronicle

By | 2017-02-28T07:31:33-08:00 February 8th, 2004|Islam and the West, San Francisco Chronicle|20 Comments

About the Author:

Larry Kelley’s life was utterly changed by 9/11. On the day after the attacks, on his way to work, he was struck by the sudden realization that World War III had commenced. Like most Americans he desperately wanted to find out who were these people who attacked us, what could ordinary citizens do to join the battle and how can those plotting to kill us in future attacks be defeated. Mr. Kelley has written scores of columns on the dangers of western complacency.


  1. Alan Fraser February 8, 2004 at 12:07 pm

    Brilliant piece. Bravo!

The version that appeared in the Chronicle was much edited. Did you or they cut the following…it’s a gem:

…it seems very unlikely that history will smile upon today’s AWABs…. They, for many reasons, have much to account for. An opposing outrage is also rising among those who understand the threat and have to suffer this fake, manufactured, perfidious anger continuously issued by not only large portions of the media, but Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, Madonna, and most of the Hollywood elite like Hussein’s shill, Sean Penn.


In any case, thanks for writing the editorial. It was a breath of fresh air.

    Alan Fraser


  2. James Warren February 8, 2004 at 12:08 pm

    I am a professional theater actor, director and Artistic Director and I live in Manhattan with my life partner of ten years. So, it would be a surprise to no one that I am a liberal Democrat, was a staunch Clinton supporter, and am vehemently against the war in Iraq. But, having just read the editorial entitled INDEED, WHERE’S THE OUTRAGE? printed in the San Francisco Chronicle on 2/8/04, I am deeply impressed with Mr. Kelley’s ability to state the Conservative case with intelligence, thought provoking examples, and historical context. It is always enraging to be told that your opinions of an administration or World Events are simply based on political bias. But Mr. Kelley knows perfectly well that both sides are continually accused of just that. What Mr. Kelley does offer is a belief system that is borne out of careful research and, at the same time, is deeply felt. And, Mr. Kelley’s integrity, fine writing and salient points make it possible for this democrat to actually hear the “other side.”

    The one thing I think we can all agree on is that there must always be a “dialogue” in which both sides, and even biases, are heard and considered. Mr. Kelley seems to be on that honorable quest.

    James Warren


  3. Marc Perkel February 8, 2004 at 12:12 pm

    Oh my, oh my, is The Chronicle ever going to hear it from its core constituency, the Bay Area’s anti-Bush liberals, for publishing Larry Kelley’s excellent essay (Open Forum, Feb. 8th) on the selective outrage of that group over Iraq. Kelley makes many valid points, but he particularly scores by using recent history to highlight the now-you-see-it, now-you-don’t pacifism of the chattering class.

    To expand a bit on Kelley’s points, anyone who opts to fairly evaluate the Bush administration’s conduct regarding Iraq in historical perspective might ask:

    (1) Were Slobodan Milosevic, Radovan Karadzic or Ratko Mladic ever an “imminent” threat to the United States?
    (2) Where were the yellow-and-black bumper stickers crying out against war in Bosnia or the bombing of Serbia?
    (3) Does anyone really think Libya would have ” ‘fessed up” concerning its nuclear program absent the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq?
    (4) Can it reasonably be doubted that, with totally different regimes on each of its borders, Iran is destined to change dramatically—and favorably—over the next decade?

    Marc Perkel
San Francisco

  4. Paul R. Haerle
 February 8, 2004 at 12:15 pm

    Larry Kelley tries hard to shift attention from the Bush administration’s intelligence failure by using words like “Bush-haters,” “outrage,” “hatred” and “leftists,” to characterize people who feel betrayed by an administration that exaggerated the threat from Iraq to take the nation to war. Ironically, Kelley’s own Web site , where he reveals his obsession with the “creeping collectivization” threatening Western civilization and declares that “all too many western Muslims celebrate Sept. 11 as a great and just victory,” proves him to be somewhat of an authority on hate.

    Paul R. Haerle


  5. Steven Barger February 8, 2004 at 12:17 pm

    Your article in today’s S.F. Chronicle was excellent.

    Larry, I don’t know you, have never read any of your columns, but after reading this morning’s Chronicle Op/Ed piece, I had to write and tell you that I couldn’t disagree with you more. Bush (and really Cheney, who is running this show), have done more harm, and have the capability to threaten the future of this great nation to such an extent, that modern, intelligent, passionate Americans simply cannot let it continue, and must use our power to vote to remove this administration in November. It seems that the level of our polarization in this country has only increased, and clouds all reasonable discourse. Larry, it’s not black, and it’s not white, but an ugly gray tone: the war in Iraq’s timing is the issue, not the war itself. It’s obvious now that we who opposed the war were right from the beginning; there was no “imminent threat” in Iraq.


Look, we all know of Hussein’s sins; his time was coming. But I could write you a book explaining all of the deceptive tactics used to manipulate Congress, and the people, to accept this war. The Republicans are hiding behind these now, when actually, it’s the timing, and the method, which is the problem. The war on Iraq could have waited at least a year or more. Why didn’t we exhaust every other option first? The answer is simple (and as simplistic as Bush’s rhetoric); this war had to be fought so that it would be over, and the corporate contributors to the Bush campaign (among them, big oil—face it—it’s true, and not a stretch—it’s disturbingly well-documented) were satiated, and the ROI was achieved. It has already started. It must stop, before the political power of corporate America becomes unstoppable. I’m all for capitalism: responsible capitalism. Unfortunately, that has left America.

    The forced war is just one of hundreds of bad decisions that we must hold this administration accountable for. I cannot sit back and watch as our country disintegrates into a dictionary definition for fascism.

    Please reply, and I’ll turn you on to a daily dose of the ill-conceived and unproductive measures being committed by Bush.

    Steven Barger
San Francisco

    • Larry February 9, 2004 at 12:19 pm


      Thanks for your long and thoughtful response. But you “no-imminent-threat” folks seem to want another Cuban missile crisis. The Chronicle edited out portions of my piece which links al Qaeda with Hussein and where I allude to the fact that he trained bin Laden’s representatives on poison gas production. That combined with his past use of Chemical weapons used against Iran and his own people was plenty of justification for me.


In addition, it does look as if Bush’s sinister “master plan” is unfolding. Middle Easterners are starting to look toward throwing off their own home-grown tyrannies rather than fomenting suicide attacks on the West.


Thanks again for your input. How do you define Facism?



  6. Buster February 8, 2004 at 12:20 pm

    Wow, do you have your information wrong. For starters, the Kurds live in Northern Iraq not Southern. Shiites live in Southern Iraq. Are you forgetting about the mass graves at Srebenica, 8000 young men and boys shot in the back of their heads, by your heroic Serbs? Are you forgetting the shelling of Sarajevo, Dubrovnik and Vukovar or did they just conveiently slip your mind? Before Osama, the most wanted men in the world were Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, responsible for ethnic cleansing in Croatia, of course Bosnia and Kosovo. Maybe when we make an effort to catch these characters, we will find Osama. But, I guess because these people are white Christains we have a problem trying to find them, despite the fact that British and German troops have no trouble kicking in doors in the former Yugoslavia. The same way Mengele, the angel of death and Eichmann Nazi war criminals were white Christians too, weren’t they?

San Francisco

    • Larry February 9, 2004 at 12:22 pm

      Thanks for writing. The Chronicle edited out the part of the sentence where I mentioned that a Kurdish mass grave was located in the South because Hussein’s murder squads swept up the men and boys from their northern Kurdish villages and bused them there for execution (see original version of the piece on the website.)


I don’t side with any ethnic cleaners or mass murderers. My point was that the pretext for war with Serbia was based on far fewer murders than were perpetrated in the last run up to Clinton’s Balkan war and that therefore the left’s opposition to this war is hypocritical in the extreme.


Thank you for your response.



  7. Kurt Coleman February 8, 2004 at 12:26 pm

    Dear Larry:

Your article in the Chronicle today is an excellent summation of this
 vile anti-war, really anti-Bush, hatred fever that has seized the
 Democrats. They hope to ride hate all the way to the White House and 
they’re reaching out to anyone beyond their base who will agree with 
their ungodly, insane and dead rhetoric. They’re pitiful, especially 
that Al Gore with his periodic psychotic pedantic tirades.


Anyway, the last paragraph of your piece says it all; it’s the elephant 
in the room (pun intended) that will squash the hateful jack-ass in

    Best regards.

    Kurt Coleman

    San Francisco

    • Larry February 9, 2004 at 12:27 pm

      Thanks Kurt.



  8. Rick Vaill February 8, 2004 at 12:28 pm


    Terrific piece of writing in Sunday’s Chronicle. I have clamped this to my growing stack of like-pieces by Victor Davis Hanson, Tom Friedman and Mark Steyn. Whenever someone challenges my impeccable position(s) on terroism, the Iraq or Afghanistan battles, the threat of Islamo-fascim, etc., I throw the stack at them, shrieking, “HERE! READ THESE! AND THEN GET BACK TO ME!”

Thank you for the ideas.

    Rick Vaill

  9. Patrick Morris February 8, 2004 at 12:47 pm

    Never trust anyone over 40? Or is it 30? Your bio reflects a curious and exploring youth now discarded or transformed like so many other “ex-hippies” of your generation into a simplistic, neoconservative alarmist – as evidenced by your editorial that people are simply against the Iraq invasion because they dislike Bush. I checked the calendar and it’s not April 1st, but if the joke is still on me and you are perhaps playing the role of “Ed Anger” (of the Weekly World News), please enlighten me.

    This argument treats this as a national issue while the great majority of the world is against our invasion of Iraq, yet they knew little of George Bush. I could go on, but let’s stop pretending Iraq was a threat and the issue of WMD, or falling back to the bogey man excuse – Republicans could give a s*%# about the Iraqi people or anyone else outsode our borders (certainly not the Kurds you mention who our ally Turkey has done equally horrible things to), and look at how we treated our long standing allies. There are also far worse and more dangerous threats to us (North Korea).


If the press was really instigating hatred against Bush, you must not be reading. I’m not old enough to have lived through the Vietnam war, but the papers sound a whole lot like they did early in that adventure. You have alos skipped the British press which has and continues roasting Blair. The culture of fear and hatred being promoted by our government and clear thinking individuals like you (it’s amazing, folks like you always seem to have it figured out while the rest of us are still guessing) is similar to the “dangerous” world perspective perpetrated by the NRA and will make this country an uglier place loathed by the world – some payoff for “one of the most benevolent wars of liberation ever.”


The sad thing is the government like we have now always plays and wins with this emphatic arguments circular logic.

    Patrick Morris
San Francisco

    • Larry February 9, 2004 at 12:49 pm


      We had a very large coalition of nations that backed our plan. As Churchill once put it, “Countries don’t have friends. They have interests.”

      Did you know that shortly after the U.S. evacuated South Viet Nam, there were over 100,000 summary executions?


  10. Oscar Torsteinson
 February 8, 2004 at 12:51 pm

    What a nasty little Orwellian fascist you are Kelley. You article in today’s Chronicle is beyond belief, as are the Bush regime’s continuing lies. You can believe Bush if you want, but the majority of us don’t. To insinuate that we are unpatriotic traitors for not buying into the lies, is an insult that won’t soon be forgiven. It is you and your ilk that are the traitors. You have not only betrayed our Constitution, but human morality as well.

    Soon, we will sweep you and yours from office. Come November, the battleground becomes the ballot box, and not a moment too soon. I look forward to seeing you and your fascist brethren with your pointed tails between your legs.


It also comes as no surprise to see the right-wing nut ramblings of your web page. It appears you buy into the whole scam of right-wing ideology, lock, stock, and barrel. Why am I not surprised?


See you in November, when Bush will receive no more than 35% of the vote. Yes, that’s 35%, the amount of still deluded souls living in this nation. Fortunately for the rest of us, America is waking up to your lies and propaganda.

    Yours in contempt,
    Oscar Torsteinson

    San Francisco

    • Larry February 9, 2004 at 12:52 pm

      Dear Oscar,

      Thank you for your most informed opinion. If you can contain your vitriol long enough, can you answer me two questions?

      Was it okay with you that we took out Milosevik?

      And was it okay with you when the previous administration bombed Baghdad for four days due to their outlaw weapons programs ?


Please try to support your position. I am interested. Oh, are you sure Bush won’t get 34%?



  11. Duke Lynch February 9, 2004 at 12:23 pm

    Good article…also scanned the website…some comments…the US Gov’t had lost it’s integrity, has lost it’s focus, has strayed from it’s foundation created by the founding fathers and indeed suffer the ignominy of idolization of recent cultural icons, and has promulgated separation in multiculturalism and (what’s that other thing?…begins with a D?) To point: I believe our problems are far greater than (hey I got it! Diversity) Politicians work for their PARTY goals as opposed to what’ is best for the country. We aware encouraged to vote for issue oriented candidate rather than management and administrative abilities…corporate business is out of control…rather than prosecuting and fining Skillings etal they should be stripped of ALL their wealth…I grew up in the depression where the drill was “use it up, wear it out, make it do, go without” enuff of this…I like your style…

    Duke Lynch

    San Francisco

    • Larry February 10, 2004 at 12:24 pm

      We would be well served to listen to those of you who’ve lived through the depression and WW2.




  12. Karen Star February 9, 2004 at 12:31 pm


I’m sure some some war opponents do merely hate Bush. Perhaps they learned from Republican treatment of the Clintons. Many people hate lawyers and politicians, just on principle!

    Personally, I think the behavior of both sides has been reprehensible. Whatever happened to civil discourse?

    Many people hate war. All that destruction, all those people dying. Just one bomb can really ruin your whole day.


This particular war stands out from all other conflicts in which we have taken part. Without the support of other nations, we invaded a sovereign nation and destroyed her government and infrastructure. If any other nation does that, what do we think of them? Iraq and Kuwait come to mind.

    Was Saddam a bad man? Surely, one of the worst. We should know, the US put the guy into power! Your tax dollars at work.

    All this sanctimonious “we’re so good and he’s so evil” crap is sickening to me. Are we at least safer now, than before?


Heck no! Have we created even greater enmity in the global factions from which terrorism rises? I shudder to think of it.

    Why should our great grandchildren be saddled with debts from a war that creates no peace, no support, no respect?


I don’t hate the president, but then… I’m not a Democrat. Nor am I a Republican. I’m registered independent, because I am not pleased with either party. We must find a way to work together, or this “Fall of the Republic” will arrive all too soon.

    Karen Star
San Francisco

    • Larry February 10, 2004 at 12:32 pm


      Thank you for your reasoned response. I’ve received many. Does the name Neville Chamberlain ring a bell?

      Repeating the falsehood that we had no allies is an insult to the many nations in our coalition, Spain, England, Australia, and most of Eastern Europe. Germany and France didn’t join us because they were doing a great deal of business with the Butcher of Baghdad.



  13. Liz Doyle February 11, 2004 at 12:33 pm

    Living here in the city of San Francisco and a Republican you can imagine how lonely I feel politically so it was with joy I read your article last Sunday in the San Francisco Comical titled “Indeed Where is
the Outrage” I tried to send a copy of the article to myself but the Chronicle is not able to release it. I have thought many times along the lines you so well express and I need the ammunition to get up the noses of my limp liberal, war at no cost (unless it’s a Democrat’s) acquaintances. So would you please consider forwarding on to me a copy of the piece?

    Liz Doyle

    San Francisco

Comments are closed.