Over at the Leftist weblog The Left Coaster, I've been treated to an example of appalling stupidity so perfect that I simply have to reproduce it here. The obliging shitforbrains is a guy named Brian Bell. He responded to my observation that "Bush is more likely to find Saddam's WMD in Syria than anywhere else" with the following post. You will notice that I was rendered mostly speechless in the face of such phenomenal idiocy; what fisking I could manage is in italics.
Bell: Let's ignore the lack of evidence for this, except for rumours published on Debka.
Why ignore the strong possibility that it's true? Even David Kay thinks it happened.
I mean, no evidence of any kind has been brought forth regarding this supposed movement of WMD, and surely we had a large amount of surveillance going on before the war, particularly along known porous borders.
Yeah, but what good is American intelligence? Is it good when it supports your argument?
But, again, for the sake of argument, we're going to ignore the lack of evidence and take these rumors on face value.
Well, if the large quantities of WMD that virtually every government and intelligence agency in the world said that Saddam had before the war haven't (yet) been found in Iraq, shouldn't there be some reasonable expectation that they were moved to a friendly country?
Okay, before the '91 Gulf War, more than a few Iraqi fighters, perhaps at Saddam's urging, flew to Iran to sit out the war.
That's an interesting way to put it.
So, Saddam moving WMD to Syria may not be out of the question based on past Iraqi failed military strategies or mutinies. Now, right after those planes either defected or were sent to Iran, Iran stated, basically, the planes are ours now. There's precedent right there.
Most of the Iraqi air force wound up there. Who knows why? Those planes would have been destroyed anyway, so that little strategem didn't work.
So, if Saddam sent his WMD to Syria, what's the issue?
The issue is that they might still be used. Ask the Jordanian police if they think that's a possibility.
If it's true, the WMD now belong to Assad and Syria. So, what's the problem? Syria has never in any way, shape nor form threatened the U.S. Where's the problem with Syria taking possession of Saddam's WMD?
Are you being obtuse out of ignorance or just irresponsibility?
Syria is not a party to either the chemical or biological weapons treaties.
Really? I wonder why.
As unbelievable as this may sound, they are truly and legally allowed to make and keep any chemical and biological weapons they want.
And you're fine with that. What incredible bullshit.
Again, if Syria has Saddam's WMD, why is it our business? It's not.
You're an incredible dumbass. There can be no denying this.
The only chemical weapon convention Syria has signed onto is the Geneva Conventions, and those only prohibit first use, which Syria claims it will abide by with the caveat that it doesn't apply it to Israel because it doesn't recognize Israel. I can see how this is a problem for Israel, although they have their own (nuclear) deterrent, so it really isn't an issue for them.
I see. You're also an anti-Semite. Do you deny that?
Furthermore, if Syria has Saddam's WMD stocks, my understanding is they have the most capable chemical weapons program in the region due to old Soviet support of some kind. Adding a few more dozen tons of WMD is unlikely to change any strategic balance. Again, no U.S. interest there.
Oh, no, no. Not at all.
So, as Syria is allowed to have WMD because they've never renounced ownership of them; as Syria has never threatened the U.S.; as Syria's possession of WMD changes no regional strategic balance; what friggin' difference does it make if Saddam's WMD were given to Syria? If Saddam gave his WMD to Syria, then Saddam disarmed and he had no WMD. It makes no difference if Syria has them or not. What am I missing? It's a silly argument to blame Syria for taking possession of Saddam's WMD for these reasons.
This is one for the record books. (Steve, do you guys mind if I reproduce this shitforbrains' [argument] on my blog? It's an almost flawless example of the idiocy of the anti-war movement.)