Is it really possible that Andrew Sullivan is only now learning about something that’s been common knowledge since 2002?
The most revealing items, of course, are the following: in discussing whether Iraq could have been involved, the notes say: “judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. at same time.” Later comes: “Hard to get a good case.” Then there’s this: “Go massive … Sweep it all up. Things related and not.” My confidence that there was no deliberate misleading of the American people after 9/11 just slipped a notch.
Unbelievable. I’ve asked this many, many times, but why exactly is it that anyone takes this guy even remotely seriously?
… puts the Orwell quote at the top of his page (“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle”) into context, doesn’t it?