Shared publicly  - 
People really still think that we invaded Iraq because we were attacked? Really -- in 2012? How deeply must your head be buried in the sand to think there was some connection between the terrorism of 9/11 and the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein? This many years later, with more than ample time to get the (not-very-challenging) facts sorted out in your head, that goes beyond being "misinformed." That's utter denial of reality.

I only bring this up because I read a comment, written within the past 12 hours, from someone who really does believe we invaded Iraq because we were attacked. This isn't a straw man, this is a real, live G+ user, commenting on a political post by +Wil Wheaton.

Fact: The US is not Kuwait.
Fact: Iraq attacked Kuwait -- and we helped boot them right back out. That was years before 9/11.
Fact: Saddam Hussein is (er, was) not Osama bin Laden.
Fact: Al Qaida is not Iraq -- nor did the bin-Laden-affiliated "al Qaida in Iraq" exist in Iraq until after the US invaded in 2003.
Fact: Al Qaida attacked the US.
Facts: Attacking Iraq did nothing to "respond" to an attack by al Qaida. Instead it diverted resources from hunting down bin Laden, enabled al Qaida to recruit more terrorists, and provided convenient targets (our military personnel).

C'mon, this isn't rocket science. You don't have to think very hard, you just have to stop repeating political fairy tales to yourself.
Stuart Whitmore's profile photoNeil R's profile photo
Neil R
Too many believe what the Liberal media feeds them.  
Neil R
BTW I think I found the original post.  Was it the one where he fabricated a photo based on a quote taken out of context?  
I think too many people believe whatever their collective "authority figure" tells them, whether its the liberal media, the conservative media, their church leader, their teacher, etc. Usually the "authority figure" is the one who tells them what they've already decided, which allows them to avoid thinking or being flexible.

I've long been a fan of trying to understand multiple sides of an issue and then logically analyzing things to arrive at my own position (which can change later if necessary, i.e., if new information is discovered or a valuable alternative insight is shared with me). That takes far more mental effort than most people seem willing to take on.

That was the post, btw. I mostly ignored it, as I generally ignore most of the political stuff that Wil posts. The monkey comment at the end about how Bush "responded" to the US being "attacked" by invading Iraq caught my eye, however. There's just no excuse for being so out of touch with reality.
Neil R
I agree--I know Bush Jr. wasn't our best president, but look at the piece of crap that preceded him.  I mean, c'mon, the guy lies under oath and doesn't get impeached??  Nice slap in the face to the whole judicial system.  

I love how the "other side" just loves to place blame anywhere but themselves, and call anyone names that is not on their side.  Economy's bad?  Blame Bush.  The military did this or that? Blame Bush.  Gas prices went up? Blame Bush.  Dog got fleas?  Blame Bush.  I'm sick of it.  I'm not sticking up for him but jeez...let's get back to reality here.  I think 90% of the general public (or the "sheeple") have no clue what happened to get us into our current predicaments--they instead just follow whatever is popular.  I think just about all politicians are to blame--there is more infighting in Congress and Senate than in a dysfunctional inbred hillbilly familyl.

Hell, look at the massive failure of the Occutards...whining like little school girls about the 'big bad corporations' and having no jobs as they sit there with their $800 phones and tablets on a $150 data plan and tell us all about it laced in melodrama and their own distorted hipster view of reality.  It wasn't about jobless or big corporations: it was about the hipsters wanting their own massive love-in for a cause, and they got their 15 minutes of -embarrassment- fame out of it.  
Add a comment...