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.
Shared publiclyView activity