Maybe I cant see the forest for the trees, but what exactly, was accomplished by taking and holding her for all that time?

Same with those religious nitwits released last week. (However, they are sort of allied with the opposition. The kidnappers didn't exactly hurt their cause so I'd call it a wash.)

Maybe money? I didn't read about a ransom being paid for either.

So, not even half an apology for your disgraceful post on 3/30 impugning Carroll's character? The only thing worse than an armchair soldier is an armchair hostage.

Especially since the four were "taken" at exactly the same spot as the Italian journalist

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177122,00.html

Boff:

She's got considerably more explaining to do, though it is heartening to hear her say that the guys who had her were at least criminals.

Like:

Why she wasn't killed, like Americans who support the war have been. To date the folks released have mostly been Europeans who seem to have facilitated cash transfers from their governments to the terrorists.

She also has to explain her statement that her release was unexpected, in light of the tape she made that said she was being released.

She needs to explain the circumstances under which she was taken--other "hostages" appear to have gone to set meeting places.

She needs to explain the contradiction between her statement on her release and her statement now.

She needs to tell us how she's co-operating with the military to hunt down the guys who held her.

Not money, Tom, but propaganda! The insurgents are showing the world the "kinder, gentler" side of jihad.

The main question is why one sort of person is shown the kinder-gentler side, no?

Mr. Judd, I hate to break this to you, but a woman who did what she had to do to save her life (by saying a few words into a camera) owes you absolutley no kind of explanation whatsoever.

Rather, your disgusting defamation of her--and your immoral refusal to withdraw it--speak volumes about you and your character.

You see, people who actually live by the Ten Commandments are familiar with the idea that one shouldn't bear false witness against their neighbors.

Though, Ms. Carroll can't be considered your neighbor. She was in Iraq, while your chickenhawk ass is behind a keyboard.

Neither courage nor principles you have.

Geek:

Our nation expended tremendous time and resources trying to get her back that could have been directed towards other things. She owes us quite a bit of explanation.

It also seems bizarre to object that her current version, that her prior statements were mere propaganda, proves that she wasn't part of an incident we ought to view with some suspicion.

Hey Geek! If only people who are in Iraq are qualified to comment on this subject, in the same way that if only veterans are qualified to talk about war, then why are all you peace creeps qualifed to talk on this subject?

And if you are going to lecture us on morality and the "Ten Commandments", the you should get straight exactly what "bear[ing] false witness" is.

But really. It's time to cut your losses and MoveOn™. Change the subject to something, anything else, like you Leftists always whenever there's a danger of admitting you were wrong. Leave St. Jill in the same Memory Hole that you people dumped Cindy Sheehan.

I think this faux hostage caper backfired big time. Now this poor girl has to recant her beautiful speech and her condemnation of Bushco and his army of killers. The moonbats are becoming tiresome and media hype isn't working anymore. It's become so blatant that even those marginally well informed can see through it.

The Mexicans marching to take back their country will be the final blow. I'm in favor of strictly controlled and documented open borders for those who wish to become Americans. Those who don't want to become American, and want better conditions for their people, should go back home and make it happen.

She needs to tell us how she's co-operating with the military to hunt down the guys who held her.

As for Ms. Carroll, she is unfortunately swimming in waters poisoned by others and therefore bears a burden to demonstrate that she's not one of them. I am still withholding judgement one way or the other at this time.

AOG:

She's going home with her family and the stories say she's refused to co-operate, like the peace activists who were released. That could all be a huge top secret subterfuge, but then you'd have to believe our intelligence services competent.

OJ, you're a complete piece of pelosi. It took you all of 60 minutes to begin smearing a young American hostage. You're a pathetic joke.

YGB:

To the contrary, we raised the questions when she went missing because her profile seemed to fit that of the others who ended up being released and, indeed, she eventually was. Her various statements have only served to raise more questions. She may well be able to answer them satisfactorily but hasn't done so thus far.

Wow, you're a kerry. You didn't "raise the questions." You have accused her of lying to her family and pretending to have been kidnapped.

We don't have any way of knowing what she's told her family. They could likely tell us what her feelings were about the war.

The question we initially raised was whether it wasn't likely that someone with her profile would be released eventually, rather than executed the way those who are working with the coalition have been. She was, in fact, released. Note that she need not have set up an entire hoax in order to have gotten herself in over her head.

We're very happy she's alive, but her release raises further questions as do her contradictory statements and the possible refusal, reported above, to co-operate fully with the military.

When you make yourself a public figure you owe the public an account of yourself. If she can give one then more power to her. We're all ears.

Your selective editing of her statemtn above is just another example of your dishonesty. Funny how the part where she calls her captors criminals and murderers isn't posted. The part where she says that she abhors all who kidnap and murder civilians isn't posted. You cherry-picked on those sentences that could be twisted to mesh with your fever-dreams.

YGB:

The CS Monitor restricts excerpting to two paragraphs.

certainly her comment that the guys who took her are only "at least criminals" is damning on its face, but she may be able to explain herself better in the future. Hope so, anyway.

I like the way the Left and their fellow travelers like to insult people by saying "you are one of us." (Because deep in their hearts they know they themselves, and don't like what they see?) The homosexuals have it down pat, and it seems to work for them, but to be calling people "pelosi" and "kerry" just doesn't seem to work the same way.

And I find it fascinating how the Party Line this morning is that those who took her release pronouncements at face value are somehow in the wrong, but only if they objected to her statements in support of the hostage takers. Those who liked what they heard are off the hook, even though those same people were just as wrong and were immediately demanding apologies from everyone who didn't have their same reaction. Now the continuing demand for apologies has become just another old Leftist tactic of shutting down (shouting down?) debate, and sweeping another mistake down the Memory Hole.

Tom: Most (all but one or two, if memory serves) of the female prisoners her kidnappers wanted released were, in fact, released. The Iraqi government claimed that there was no connection.

"Hadn't heard those last rumors, though it does seem odd she's not still being debriefed by the military. At any rate, good to see her start unmuddying the waters."

omfg, the AP and the christian science monitor REPORT on the HER STATEMENT and u call it rumors? i agree, this site and other sites that basically eviscerated her on the day of her release owe her some massive apologies. anyone who defends what was said is just a lemming and is a case in point of how incompetently the administration and republican party have handled things while 2/3 and now 3/3 of the govt (w/ alito appointed) bodies have been in their control. "must toe party line with out thinking. mistakes? what does that mean?"

for those of u who have posted w/ thoughtfullness and insight as to what she may have gone thru, thank u. u offer hope that ppl of different political backgrounds can have dialogue. those who simply used the issue to vent more toxic crap into the blogosphere and society, well, u can just, apologize, profusely. that is, if u have any of that vaunted repulican moral fiber and integrity u go on and on about.

yes, i'm glad she de-muddied the water that ppl here (those of u who didn't know who u r) and elsewhere sh!t in from day one of her release. yeh, way to go jill, nice to see u've taken responsibility for your kidnapping and the crass responses ppl made to your video while made in captivity. that was sarcasm, for any opportunists who might think to use it out of context. ;)

btw, still waiting for official apologies from judd et al., whom have made these sorts of comments w/ no effort at all to rescind their callous spewing.

OJ: "She's got considerably more explaining to do..."

Really? About what? It's positively obvious to anyone not blinded by ideology: Female journalist kidnapped in order to obtain the release of female prisoners; when that gambit failed, the terrorists made her make a propaganda video for her to stay alive; once she returned she recanted and told everyone what criminals they were.

Given the fact that she already explained that the interview at the Islamic party HQ was also under duress, and that she has already been debriefed by U.S. military, what more does she have to explain to you or anyone else?

Frankly, the kinds of conspiracy-laden questions being thrown around by wingers like yours above are bizarre, to say the least. Occam's razor, my boy, Occam's razor.

"...the interview at the Islamic party HQ was also under duress, and that she has already been debriefed by U.S. military, what more does she have to explain to you or anyone else?"

just to clarify as some may jump on the issue that she must not have been under duress since she was no longer a captive. hmm, let's think about this... she's kidnapped for 3 months, and finally told on her release to not aid the U.S. or go to the green zone bc of the risks to her. this being in iraq, u know?-that country where the good news is never told?-and iraqi soldiers in training are ratted out (assuming from an inside source) when going on leave to see their families for a weekend, and their bus is intercepted and all are summarily murdered. yeah, that iraq. the iraq where one might, after being released and told to basically stay away from supporting the U.S. or seeking help with them bc of infiltration, that one would be justifiably paranoid to say what it takes to insure that they get out of harm's way. why? bc they don't know who to trust. it may not be an overt gun-in-your-face-behind-the-camera duress, but given such events of sabotage (read: incidents like said iraqi forces in training) in iraq which indicate inside sources, it may as well have been.

Boff:

Her release.

mutatio;

If you think dialogue is a good idea, perhaps you should try writing in the same language as those in the forum in which you are trying to communicate. If it's too much effort to write with correct spelling and grammar, you should question whether it is worth writing at all.

After watching the eruption at anyone who has dared suggest that Jill Carroll is less than a saint (from some here to John Podhoretz to a few others around the web), I am struck by the fierceness of the attack. Surely OJ (and Podhoretz) were not insulting, just noting a few inconvenient pointers; and on the heels of the moral boorishness of the "Christian" peace activists who were rescued several days ago, it is no surprise that Carroll's situation would be looked at with a bit of a jaded eye.

But, do Boffo, Geek, and YGB (or Rick Perlstein, for that matter) believe that Carroll has supreme moral authority, as MoDo put it? If the President and the military are to be questioned (to be generous) at every turn, then what about reporters, activists, protestors, and the like?

Annoying Old Guy,

Point taken, though I don't think I went beyond basic shorthand. fwiw, oops, for what it's worth, such shorthand holds enough correct spelling and grammar to be used in every court room for recordkeeping in this great nation. :-)

Only in a cesspool would you find people demanding explanations from a hostage victim. These people seem dissappointed she was not killed.

No, everyone is happy that she wasn't killed, but wonders why she wasn't. Others who've been released unharmed--as there was never any doubt she'd be--were quite clearly anti-American and pro-terrorist.