I can’t hope to compare to the Moe Lane Treatment (©?) already given this story, but I did feel compelled to make a couple of points about it. Let’s refresh:

Independent [Ed: Read: Socialist] Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders says language next to president’s portrait is misleading because it says the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks led to the war in Iraq. …

Sanders, a strong opponent of the Iraq war, has asked the Smithsonian to rewrite the text that says Bush’s two terms in office were “marked by a series of catastrophic event” including the “the attacks on September 11, 2001, that led to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Sanders says the notion that the terrorist attacks were linked to or led to the Iraq war has been widely debunked.

In a letter to the gallery director Martin Sullivan, he has asked the Smithsonian to rewrite the text, to avoid what he calls rewriting history.

Aside from the obvious hilarity inherent in a leftist’s crying out about the “rewriting [of] history” — something many have a habit of doing — it appears some synapses in the “consistency” and “meaning of words” segments of Mr. Sanders’s brain, such as they are, have taken a brief respite from accurately firing.

Here’s a quick look at why:
In his BDS-driven rush to alter the Smithsonian plaque, Mr. Sanders jumps to the conclusion that the factual statement there gives President Bush credit for being right about Iraq in any capacity (if there is one thing the Left absolutely cannot abide with regard to GWB, this is it). He is demanding that the wording be altered because he is greatly offended by something that, in fact, isn’t there in the first place.

It takes quite the hate-addled mind to skip facts and rush to the conclusion that a reference to “the attacks on September 11, 2001, that led to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq” means that the 9/11 attacks were committed by Afghanistan and Iraq (and that the nonexistent claim must therefore be removed); rather (and this has been one of the Left’s favorite talking points for years), the 9/11 attacks unquestionably led to the Iraq conflict.

After all, does anybody honestly believe that Bush would have suggested an invasion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq — let alone managed to secure Congressional approval for it — if the 9/11 attacks had never happened?

Vocal liberals have been going on record as believing that 9/11 led to the Iraq war for years. Last year, for example, Der Spiegel accosted McCain foreign policy adviser Robert Kagan about just that belief, engaging in this exchange:

SPIEGEL: Isn’t it true that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld took advantage of the outrage over the 9/11 terrorist attacks to strike Iraq? Is it even possible anymore to deny that the war was based on manipulation, exaggeration and flat-out lies?

Kagan: That’s absurd.

SPIEGEL: It’s a commonly held view…

Some liberal website I’ve never heard of agreed, saying in 2005 that Bush used the opportunities given him by 9/11 to invade Iraq, as well as to engage in even more nefarious activities, like — gasp! — passing tax cuts.

Bush is an opportunist who took advantage of the nation’s rage after 9/11 to pass more tax cuts for his wealthy friends…After Democrats made a show of bipartisan support for the president, Bush trumped up the terror threat in the 2002 election to pad the Republican lead in the House and regain the Senate majority. Then he passed another tax cut and invaded Iraq

Richard Clarke said similar things in 2004 when he told the New York Times: “the Bush administration has undermined American national security by using the 9/11 attacks for political advantage and ignoring the threat of Al Qaeda in order to invade Iraq.”

In his rush to condemn anything his addled mind could possibly construe as being a justification for Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, Bernie Sanders is demanding that a favorite lefty talking point — that Bush used 9/11 (the political bounce, the so-called national unity, the increased awareness of an external threat, and the supposedly cowed, gullible Democrat Congress) to invade Iraq, and therefore that 9/11 led to the Iraq war itself — be deposited under the bus.

Ah, well; what’s consistency to Bernie Sanders when there’s a Rorshach president to be misinterpreted, accused, and hated?