Don't expect "journalist" Jillie to "investigate" that one. But hey, she says her Islamic terrorist captors treated her "very well," and she talked about the nice shower and bathroom they gave her.
Since things were so great in captivity, maybe she should have remained at Terrorist Day Spa. And maybe they should change the name from "Stockholm Syndrome" to "Baghdad Syndrome."
Or this aptly titled piece, from John Hinderocker:
A Moment of ChurlishnessNow, compare:
As you no doubt know, journalist Jill Carroll was released by her kidnappers in Baghdad last night. We are, of course, glad that she is alive, unlike so many others who have been taken hostage in Iraq.
No doubt her joy at being freed overwhelms all else, and it is probably churlish to critique her public comments. Nevertheless, I want to register a small protest against her statement, widely quoted in the press, that she was "well treated" by her captors. This is a sentiment that one often hears from people who have been released by kidnappers; one gets the sense that the victims are grateful--understandably, perhaps--to the terrorists for letting them go.
But the fact is that Ms. Carroll was not "well treated" by her captors. She says that they "never hit me. They never even threatened to hit me." Terrific. But they did threaten to cut off her head, and kept her in fear of her life for nearly three months. To anyone who saw the videos in which she pleaded for her life, her mental distress was obvious. And the kidnappers murdered Carroll's translator in the course of capturing her.
No doubt, in saying that she had been "well treated," Ms. Carroll was mostly trying to assure her friends and family that her physical condition was OK. That's obviously appropriate. But let's not encourage a lot of warm feelings toward the murderous thugs who kidnapped Carroll, shot her translator, and may well have received a ransom to let her go.
RAMSTEIN AIR BASE, Germany (AP) - Former hostage Jill Carroll strongly disavowed statements she had made during captivity in Iraq and shortly after her release, saying Saturday she had been repeatedly threatened.
In a video, recorded before she was freed and posted by her captors on an Islamist Web site, Carroll spoke out against the U.S. military presence. But Carroll said the recording was made under threat. Her editor has said three men were pointing guns at her at the time.
"During my last night in captivity, my captors forced me to participate in a propaganda video. They told me I would be released if I cooperated. I was living in a threatening environment, under their control, and wanted to go home alive. So I agreed," she said in a statement read by her editor in Boston.
"Things that I was forced to say while captive are now being taken by some as an accurate reflection of my personal views. They are not." ....
Carroll also disavowed an interview she gave to the party shortly after her release. She said the party had promised her the interview would not be aired "and broke their word."[Update: at 9:50PM, Paul Mirengoff of Powerline posted the following:
"At any rate, fearing retribution from my captors, I did not speak freely. Out of fear I said I wasn't threatened. In fact, I was threatened many times," she said. "Also, at least two false statements about me have been widely aired: That I refused to travel and cooperate with the U.S. military and that I refused to discuss my captivity with U.S. officials. Again, neither is true."
She now says what was obvious (except to the American left) -- her captors did not treat her well. In fact, it turns out that she was confined to a small, soundproof room with frosted, opaque windows, and was "threatened many times." Carroll also explains that her statements while in captivity that expressed sympathetic to the insurgency and criticism of the U.S. were made under duress. Specifically, the terrorists were aiming guns at her head.I still think Hinderocker owes Carroll an apology.]
As I said yesterday, Jill Carroll has an obvious excuse. What is the excuse of those on the American left who utter similar nonsense and who defended the substance of Carroll's original coerced drivel?
[Update at 17:05 MDT: See also Joe Gandlesman and RightWingNutHouse.]