JUAN NON-VOLOKH: “Time will tell whether there is anything to the Able Danger story — and whether or not the ‘wall’ inhibited information sharing — but it is clearer than ever that Jamie Gorelick should not have served on the 9/11 Commission.” Indeed.

The various folks sending nasty emails to bloggers on her behalf are, of course, only raising her profile in a context where she would otherwise be a peripheral figure (and one who was, until I started getting all these emails, of no particular interest to me). Are they tools of Karl Rove? Er, or just tools . . .?

UPDATE: Craig Henry, meanwhile, thinks it’s all about Tailhook, and what that scandal did to morale among military leaders:

Tailhook started out as a scandal over the drunken behavior of some naval aviators. But it soon grew into a big political battle over military culture with a big dose of congressional posturing, anti-military press bias, and careerist behavior by senior Pentagon leadership. Although Tailhook made the Navy ground zero, both the Army and Air Force faced the same issues and PR nightmares. . . .

This interview with Webb goes into more detail. In it the interviewer notes that more admirals were ruined by Tailhook than by Pearl Harbor. Ponder that for just a moment. . . .

Maybe we are barking up the wrong tree on Gorelick. “The Wall” may have had some impact on the men in charge of ABLE DANGER. OTOH, the post-Tailhook behavior of Republicans and Democrats might be more important.

I do not expect that this idea is going to go anywhere in the blogosphere. If it is correct, the blame is bi-partisan. Trent Lott is as culpable as Gorelick or Hilliary. Bi-partisan outrage is popular only when it can be directed at social conservatives.

Beats me, but there’s probably plenty of blame to go around.