Last word on Jill Carroll kidnapping. Jeff Jacoby:

To some people hearing this, it was plain that Carroll could only have been speaking under duress. "Jill Carroll forced to make propaganda video as price of freedom," the Monitor headlined its story the next day. Anyone tempted to accuse Carroll of some other motive, cautioned Ellen Knickmeyer of The Washington Post, "should think about what they would do (after) three months with machine guns held to their heads."

In it Jill Carroll seems more than eager to give the 'correct' answers asked by her captors. It's quite sickening some of the answers she gives, but understandable under the circumstances. But, before you accuse Jill of being a victim of Stockholm Syndrome, keep in mind that she was under duress....

Very scripted, very much what you would expect the terrorists wanted to hear.

What would you say to your captors after months as a prisoner? You'd tell them exactly what they want to hear. Remember, the only video we have of Jill Carroll are two segments taped while she was still a prisoner--under a considerable amount of duress. The second video we have is one taped in the offices of The Islamic Party of Iraq--the political front for the same terrorists who had victimized her!

"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."... ...In the statement, 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."... ..."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: One — that I refused to travel and cooperate with the U.S. military, and two — that I refused to discuss my captivity with U.S. officials. Again, neither statement is true."

Jim Geraghty also chimes in against both the Right and Left, but since we've already discussed the Right's reaction:

There was much ugliness on the right, but there was plenty of the same nastiness to go around on the left. Shortly after her initial remarks, John Podhoretz predicted on National Review Online's group blog The Corner that there would be a lot of talk about Stockholm Syndrome. Shortly thereafter, a contributor to the liberal blog ThinkProgress demanded an apology (presumptuously speaking for Carroll) and other commenters on that site wished for Podhoretz to get kidnapped himself, labeling him a "Reichwingnut" and so on.

No matter how much you may disagree with a network anchor, reporter or columnist, it's unheard of for a professional writer to say in published work, "I hope that guy gets kidnapped." Even on his worst day, it's unimaginable that Rather (or Bob Schieffer, or any new anchor) would label, on-air an opponent a "Reichwingnut." (Okay, maybe Bryant Gumbel. But when he called Robert Knight "a ****ing idiot," he at least thought he was off the air. ) Nor is any columnist likely to speculate in print that abducted prisoners are in cahoots with their captors, at least without evidence....

The Pajamahadeen have gone from fact-checking Dan Rather to speculating that Jill Carroll faked her tears on her hostage tape. This is not progress.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:19 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 703 words, total size 5 kb.