Ann Althouse says she isn’t responsible for the content of the editorial she pushed to thousands of Instapundit.com readers because she didn’t fact check it:

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.

Everyone can judge for themselves whether it’s right to reprint attacks on someone without any clue as to whether they’re true. But maybe now that we’ve pointed out that her information was wrong, she should let her readers know.

But remember, we are the real problem. By demanding the false smear on Gorelick be corrected we haven’t demostrated “a commitment to civil discourse.”

Responding to emails from Think Progress readers, the National Review’s John Podhoretz finally admitted what he’s been saying about Jamie Gorelick’s 1995 memo isn’t true. He still, however, doesn’t understand the scope of his error. And, in typical Podhoretz fashion, spends a lot more time insulting the people who pointed out his mistake than apologizing:

OKAY, THE CRAZIES GOT ME OVER AN ADVERB [JPod]
Evidently, among the 12,000 or so words I have written on the Able Danger matter on this website, I wrote a sentence in which I used the word “solely” — to wit, “I don’t really understand all of it, but the evidence suggests that the Able Danger information could and should have been shared with the FBI and wasn’t “” solely owing to the ‘raising’ of the intelligence wall that was done by Jamie Gorelick herself in 1995.” That was hyperbolic, as it certainly was not “solely” the result of the raising of the “wall.” But the sentence as written was conditional, as I said at its beginning that I didn’t understand all of it, and that the evidence “suggested” something. That’s hardly a definitive statement of anything, though Leftoid robots doubtless can’t understand this because they only act on binary statements.

Actually, it wasn’t just the word “solely” that made Podhoretz’s statement problematic. Gorelick’s memo had nothing to do with whether the Able Danger data was shared because it wasn’t about information sharing between the Department of Defense and the FBI. It was about information sharing between the FBI and the criminal division of the Justice Department. Why can’t Podhoretz understand this?

Podhoretz concludes:

So if the robots who are unable either to appreciate distinctions, follow arguments as they unfold over more than a week and simply respond like programmed mental cases because of the workings of the Leftoid Internet want me to disavow the adjective “solely,” I do so. Congratulations. Now shut yourselves off. You need down time.

We love you too, JPod.