"A woman named Ann Althouse" responds.

Did I make trouble for Glenn with this Instapundit post? Read this, from Think Progress.

"Think Progress" — if you want to call yourself that, don't make the "think" part seem like a joke.

(Why does it irk me that TP referred to me as "a woman named Ann Althouse"? A whiff of sexism there? Or is it like "A Man Called Horse" — kind of noble? I'll put it on my list of possible titles for the memoir I'm writing about my life as a blogger. A key chapter will be on the big difference between the way bloggers to my left and bloggers to my right treat me.)

In the comments at the Think Progress link:

Trying to insist Reynolds is vicariously part of this “smear” campaign you charge is being perpetrated, through Althouse’s bringing notice to an editorial in Investors Business Daily and calling it harsh, while guestblogging at Instapundit, is an absolute textbook example of what people mean when they use the term “moonbat.”

Indeed.

Frankly, I haven't traced down the exact role of Jamie Gorelick as one of the government lawyers who played a role in restraining the sharing of information between intelligence and law enforcement. I didn't fact-check the assertions in the editorial I cited. Think Progress writes:

Shaffer’s story [re Able Danger], if it’s true, involved communications between the Department of Defense and the FBI. Gorelick’s 1995 memo was only about communications between the FBI and the criminal division of the Justice Department.

I didn't fact-check that either. I'd love to read a very substantial, unbiased analysis about the role of government lawyers in stopping the flow of information about the 9/11 plot. But isn't that what the report of the 9/11 Commission should, in part, have been? I don't want to see Gorelick (or anyone else) smeared, but by serving on the Commission, she contributed to the feeling many of us have now that we were deprived of the whole story.

This isn't a vendetta about Gorelick. The only other mention of her on this blog is in this post linking to my own Instapundit post (to make a place for comments). I'm genuinely concerned about the Able Danger story. But now that Think Progress is drawing attention to Gorelick, I can see that her presence on the 9/11 Commission impairs the credibility of its report. That's terribly important!

Isn't it?

If it's not, explain why, respectfully and rationally, and I'll discuss it with you. Don't just go into that ridiculous hysterical mode. My recent experience with lefty blogs that misread, freak out, and hurl insults makes me unwilling to engage with people who don't show a commitment to civil discourse. I'm going to save time by assuming it's not going to go anywhere.

UPDATE: A shorter Atrios... Wait! You can't get any shorter. I mean: Thanks to Atrios for providing an instant example of what I'm saying about lefty blogs. Sigh.

IN THE COMMENTS: Lots of hardcore types making fools of themselves and some good observations too. I just wanted to highlight this statement of mine about fact-checking:

Bloggers link to articles and opinion pieces all the time without independently checking the facts in them. If someone just sent me a friendly email when there's an error, I'd check into it and make a correction. There's nothing to flake out about. You're just being hardcore partisans looking for ways to attack all the terribly many people you view as your enemies.

I'm supposed to do independent research before I blog about anything that contains factual statements? That's a weird requirement, yet Atrios and Think Progress are acting all triumphant as if this post admits to some big failing! Really, is it their contention that you can't link to an opinion piece without checking any facts it includes? Do they follow that rule? I think not!