Stupid or lying?

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?