March 30, 2006


Journalist Jill Carroll Released in Iraq (Jonathan Finer and Ellen Knickmeyer, 3/30/06, Washington Post )

American journalist Jill Carroll, abducted in early January by gunmen in Baghdad, was released to a Sunni Arab political party in the capital Thursday morning after 82 days in captivity.

"I was never hurt, ever hit," she told a Washington Post reporter. "I was kept in a safe place and treated very well."

May as well just come right out and say she was a willing participant.

Like Susanne Osthoff and Giuliana Sgrena.

Questions About Carroll's Captivity (Howard Kurtz, March 31, 2006, Washington Post)

Reporters for big news organizations, after all, generally travel with security details, while Carroll is a 28-year-old freelancer who went to Baghdad on her own, became a stringer for the Christian Science Monitor and clearly was bent on understanding Iraqi culture.

This is a courageous young woman.

I must say, though, that I found her first interview yesterday rather odd. Carroll seemed bent on giving her captors a positive review, going on about how well they treated her, how they gave her food and let her go to the bathroom. And they never threatened to hit her. Of course, as we all saw in those chilling videos, they did threaten to kill her. And they shot her Iraqi translator to death.

Why make a terrorist group who put her family and friends through a terrible three-month ordeal sound like they were running a low-budget motel chain?

Now perhaps this is unfair, for there is much we do not know. We don't know why Carroll was kidnapped and why she was abruptly released. She says she doesn't either, but surely she must have gotten some clues about her abductors' outlook and tactics during her 82-day captivity. Maybe she was just shell-shocked right after being let go. Maybe she won't feel comfortable speaking out until she's back on American soil.

As my colleagues in Baghdad point out, when that interview was taped, Carroll was still in the custody of a Sunni political party with ties to the insurgency. It may have just made sense for her to be especially cautious. And they tell me that Carroll did cry -- off camera -- when the subject of her murdered translator came up. Still, people are buzzing because her taped remarks have been played over and over again on television. I hope she'll be able to share a fuller account of her ordeal soon.

Insurgents Justify Release of Jill Carroll in Web Tape (ABC News, March 30, 2006)
ABC News has found a video on an insurgent Web site showing U.S. reporter Jill Carroll before she was released by her captors in Iraq. The circumstances surrounding the video are unclear and it is equally unclear whether Carroll was under duress during the taping.

The tape appears to have been made earlier today, before Carroll's captors released her, but the time of the taping has not yet been confirmed by ABC News. [...]

Voice: Do you have a message for Mr. Bush?

Carroll: (Laughs)Yeah, he needs to stop this war. He knows this war is wrong. He knows that it was illegal from the very beginning. He knows that it was built on a mountain of lies and I think he needs to finally admit that to the American people and make the troops go home and he doesn't care about his own people.

He doesn't care about the people here in Iraq, he needs to wake up and the people of America need to wake up and tell that what he's done here is wrong and so hopefully this time he can get the message that this war was wrong and the continuing occupation is wrong adn he could change his policies. He's dangerous for Iraq. He's dangerous for America. He needs to accept that and admit that to people.

Voice: Do you think the Mujahedeen will win against the American Army?

Carroll: Oh definitely. Things are very clear to see even now they're already winning. Everyday there are soldiers killed. Everyday humvees are blown up. Helicopters are shot down from the skies. Everyday, it's very clear that the Mujahedeen have the skills and the ability and the desire and the good reasons to fight that'll make them ensure that they will win.

Voice: What do you feel now that the Mujahedeen are giving you your freedom while there are still women in Abu Ghraib living in very bad (unclear)?

Carroll: Well, I feel guilty honestly. I've been here, treated very well, like a guest. I've been given good food, never, never hurt while those women are in Abu Ghraib. Terrible things are happening to them with the American soldiers are torturing them and other things I don't want, I can't even say, so I feel guilty and I also feels it shows the difference between the Mujahedeen and Americans, the Mujahedeen are merciful and kind that's why I'm free and alive. The American army they aren't [...not clear...] I feel guilty and I also feel that it just shows that Mujahedeen are good people, fighting an honorable fight, a good fight while the Americans are here as an occupying force treating the people in a very, very bad way so I can't be happy totally for my freedom, there are people still suffering in prisons and very difficult situations.

It's easy enough to believe she was subjected to coercion in the making of the tape, but hard to square with her statements that she was surprised to be released and was treated well, no? Let's hope she can explain all the inconsistencies.

Exclusive: Jill Carroll Middle Man Says Kidnappers Demanded $8 Million (ABC News, April 12, 2006)

The man behind Jill Carroll's release tells ABC News in an exclusive interview that kidnapping the American journalist was a mistake. Sheikh Sattam al-Gaaod reveals what it took to free her — and why he supports the resistance.

Al-Gaaod was one of three people specifically thanked by Carroll's family after her release.

"They are defending their country," he said in an interview at his summer house outside Amman, Jordan. "They are an honest resistance. And sometimes they do mistakes."

One mistake, he said, was kidnapping Carroll. Al-Gaaod said he used his influence to help free her... [...]

Al-Gaaod said he believes attacks on U.S. troops are justifiable because the Americans are occupiers, but he calls attacks on civilians criminal.

The editor of the Christian Science Monitor said today he was unaware of any ransom payment paid by anyone.

Contrary to the hysteria of some folks, you can be glad that she was released without being so naive as to believe the official story. Given the series of examples, it wouldn't seem that controversial to observe that if you support the ends of the Sunni terrorists and facilitate a transfer payment to their cause you're more likely to be released unharmed than if you work for the reconstruction effort.

Kidnapped Reporter Had Unlikely Friend (The Boston Channel, April 13, 2006)

We're learning more about the road to freedom for kidnapped reporter Jill Carroll, who was released two weeks ago.

It turns out the former hostage from Massachusetts had an unlikely friend behind enemy lines.

NewsCenter 5's Mary Saladna reported that there were three people Carroll's family specifically thanked for her safe return when she was released from her captors, one of them a sheik who was once one of Saddam Hussein's closest business associates. He says he's now one of the proud leaders of the Iraqi insurgents.

"They are defending their country and they are honest resistancy and sometimes they do mistakes," he said.


Posted by Orrin Judd at March 30, 2006 7:47 AM

Why do I get the feeling that Jill Carroll will be the next version of Yvonne Ridley. Ridley managed, somehow, to get fired by Al Jazeera, for being TOO strident with the Islam conversion.

Posted by: Brad S at March 30, 2006 8:43 AM

I'm glad that Jill Carroll, girl hostage, has been freed. However, her detention never really became a cause here.

Posted by: Ed Bush at March 30, 2006 9:07 AM

Lots of TV face time coming up for Ms. Carroll by the end of the week, and probably at least one Sunday talk show appearance, if she'll already shown she'll say the proper talking points. Hope she remembers to say something about her Sunni escort who was killed during the kidnapping when she mentions how well she was treated by the terrorists.

Posted by: John at March 30, 2006 9:24 AM

Since she went into this situation as a news reporter, understanding the risks, I find it strange that while in captivity she made a video asking that our side do whatever the kidnappers were demanding to secure her release.

Had we been able to do that (their demands were impossible to meet), the message to the head choppers and kidnappers would be "more more more" and the numbers and viciousness of the crimes would have escalated.

I am glad they never tried to accede to their ridiculous demands and if she were killed because of it, she knew the risks. Nobody forced her to go to Iraq in the middle of a war.

Posted by: Michael at March 30, 2006 11:40 AM

Could it be that real muslims do not strike women? That they actullay respect them?
Ya think, oh you idiots do not do that do you? You just follow. Easier that using your brains... Oh yeah, your to busy sitting on them to use them right?


Posted by: Darren at March 30, 2006 2:23 PM

Yes, real Muslims don't strike women, but apparently they blow them up?

You insult Islam when you call those thugs "real Muslims," so if that was your goal, nice work.

Posted by: Timothy at March 30, 2006 2:28 PM

Thanks Tim for backing up my claim of brain usage. Be sure to wipe.
You have no fucking clue do you? THey blow up people who are oppressing them. They DO NOT target women.


Posted by: Darren at March 30, 2006 2:30 PM

Michael, You guys certainly are a compassionate lot. With over 80 reporters already killed in Iraq, her to comment that she was treated well should be a good thing. Perhaps you would be happier if they would have raped her, or if she was beheaded. I mean it would have been her fault for being there, right? Her life doesn't seem to be of much value to you all. Does it make you feel good to hate that much. Jesus is watching.

Posted by: terry at March 30, 2006 2:37 PM

"Jesus is watching"

... and trolls are posting.

Posted by: jefferson park at March 30, 2006 2:43 PM

yer an idiot judd. get a clue. you know absolutely nothing about the situation aside from your opinion yet u would spew this kind of crap. it's about as thought out as me saying that because i find your comments to be infantile, you must have a penchant for children, and are hence a pedofile. stupid right? do some work by way of research as a basis for forming an opinion whether u r a journalist, blogger, or otherwise. to do less just means u lack the initiative (that's supposed to be a republican value right?) to carry a substantive point of view beyond the affirmations of others who simply agree with you.

Posted by: mutatio at March 30, 2006 2:47 PM

Micheal says:
"I am glad they never tried to accede to their ridiculous demands and if she were killed because of it, she knew the risks. Nobody forced her to go to Iraq in the middle of a war."

So what you're saying is screw every journalist that's died while covering the war and bringing the story back to the US? Since no one is twisting there arms, they die and so be it, so what?

Posted by: Cory at March 30, 2006 2:48 PM

I shouldn't feed you trolls, but chew on this:

There's even video in case you have trouble reading. Try telling Jasem Muhammad Al-Mutawah he's not a real Muslim.

Posted by: Jason Johnson at March 30, 2006 2:51 PM

Well, the logic and reasoning displyed by the dissenting commenters here has certainly assisted me in coming to a conclusion.

Posted by: Mikey at March 30, 2006 2:52 PM

Maybe you Judd should get off your ass and get kidnapped in Iraq. What a blowhard.

Posted by: K at March 30, 2006 3:23 PM

It is sad that the level of discourse on this site is beneath the common sense required to impart any logical ideas. Judd speak
is just more of the same unfounded bias and outright lies found
on such dishonest sites as LGF or the Corner. Find a brain cell to share and then maybe you will get a clue, fools.

Posted by: Comte de Rochambeau at March 30, 2006 3:31 PM

meet one leftist, you've met them all. life's losers venting their bitterness and ignorance. sucks to be them.

Posted by: toe at March 30, 2006 3:33 PM

Judd, do you have any evidence that Carroll was complicit in her kidnapping? Is it more probable that she was trying to reassure those people that care about her that she was alright? Just because she said that she was treated well doesn't make her kidnappers any less monstrous. There is no need to disparage Carroll's reputation and belittle her terrible experience - even if it assists your political viewpoint. Your accusation is remarkably short-sighted and irresponsible. All of us should be happy that Carroll was not killed. You do a disservice to the political positions you espouse.

Posted by: Bill at March 30, 2006 3:48 PM

Michael, You guys certainly are a compassionate lot.

I save my compassion for those who deserve it.

With over 80 reporters already killed in Iraq,

What a load! Over 70 of those "reporters" were Iraqi guards, translators, camera people - behind the scenes types being paid by the reporters to take those risks. Go ahead, provide me a list of "reporters" killed in Iraq - I dare ya.

her to comment that she was treated well should be a good thing.
Ever heard of Stockholm Syndrome? Here's a description:

Stockholm Syndrome describes the behavior of kidnap victims who, over time, become sympathetic to their captors. The name derives from a 1973 hostage incident in Stockholm, Sweden. At the end of six days of captivity in a bank, several kidnap victims actually resisted rescue attempts, and afterwards refused to testify against their captors.

What causes it?

What causes Stockholm Syndrome? Captives begin to identify with their captors initially as a defensive mechanism, out of fear of violence. Small acts of kindness by the captor are magnified, since finding perspective in a hostage situation is by definition impossible. Rescue attempts are also seen as a threat, since it's likely the captive would be injured during such attempts.

Sound familiar? When someone like her is released or rescued, she needs the care of medical people and psychologists who can assess the damage to her mind and body. She should not be making statements until that is done. Any she does make should be ignored. Next, she'll announce her conversion to Islam. What a bunch of baloney.

Perhaps you would be happier if they would have raped her, or if she was beheaded.
Thanks for the insult. You don't know me. But you feel free to accuse me of being happy if she were raped or beheaded? And then you talk to me about being compassionate? You, sir are a phony and a hypocrite. She went to Iraq knowing the risks. She was unfortunate enough to get kidnapped. Her wonderful captors, who treated her so kindly, forced her to make a video begging that the authorities do what the terrorists demanded to save he life. I don't know about you, but people I say treated me well, I do not beg for my life.

I mean it would have been her fault for being there, right?
I don't know if you are really that thick or just playing games. It was not her fault that she got kidnapped. It was her decision to take the risk and put herself in the place where such things were happening on a routine basis. Can you really not see the difference? Really?

Her life doesn't seem to be of much value to you all.
Actually, her life doesn't have much value to me. I don't know her and given the story, it is unlikely that I ever would want to. But that's a Hell of a long way from me thinking she deserved to die. Your "logic" is pathetic.

Does it make you feel good to hate that much.
I don't hate that woman. I am apathetic about her. Know what that means. I don't much care about her. I am somewhat gladdened by her release because I don't like to see anyone murdered by those terrorist bastards, but she means nothing to me. And begging is unbecoming.

Jesus is watching.

Prove it. I am an atheist. I don't think any magical spirit in the sky is watching anything.

Posted by: Michael at March 30, 2006 3:55 PM

To suggest that Ms. Carroll was complicit in her own kidnapping is perhaps the most scurrilous piece of right wing character assassination crap I have heard yet. Show some balls, you troll. Go to Baghdad.

Posted by: Walter L. Maroney at March 30, 2006 4:00 PM

Michael, you wrote, "I don't know about you, but people I say treated me well, I do not beg for my life."

Unless you have been recently released yourself, you really don't know what you are talking about. This is just the beginning of her story. How do you know she wasn't muslim already? How do you know she will convert to Islam?

Instead of deciding you know everything already, perhaps you should try listening for a few minutes.

Posted by: Bill at March 30, 2006 4:00 PM

Michael, if you were just released by kidnappers, my apologies. And I hope you do well with recovering from that traumatic experience.

Posted by: Bill at March 30, 2006 4:03 PM

Well that was refreshing. School still gets out at 3PM I'd guess.

Posted by: Genecis at March 30, 2006 4:15 PM

I don't know. The headscarf kinda gives away at least one clue:) The next clue will be a pundit/journalist contract with either Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya.

Posted by: Brad S at March 30, 2006 4:20 PM

We do know that the Italian and German women -- Giuliana Sgrena and Susanne Osthoff -- were complicit in their own kidnappings, using them as means to shake down their own governments for money for the terrorists. The circumstances of this kidnapping appear similar enough that a certain healthy dose of skepticism is required, but only if you've an open mind.

(The four "peace activists" likewise ought to doubted.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2006 4:25 PM

Wanna compare anything the critics of this calumny have said to what Scalia says when he gets out of Mass? (Actually, he was still in church when he flipped off a Reporter; claims to be a good and practicing Catholic, of course).

See, the thing that's so typical here is the the troll goes after a woman who has actually suffered something. The right wing in this country seems to take delight in that. Drown New Orleans, send kids off to war without body armor; make sick fun of a woman who was in real danger of beheading for months. Don't send your own kids off to war, of course, that's too dangerous and scary. Those mean nasty muslims that you like to rail about might actually hurt you. So much easier to sit back at a typewriter, defended by the children of the poor, and hurl sick insults at people with genuine convictions and very genuine courage.

The right wing in this country is immoral, hypocritical, corrupt, cowardly decadent and sick.

Thank you. Now that I've gotten that off my chest, I shall return to home room to clap erasers.

Posted by: Walter Maroney at March 30, 2006 4:27 PM

Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winner!

Mr. Maroney manages to hit every dopey Leftist trope all in one comment!

George Bush controls the weather, dude....

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2006 4:34 PM

So what you're saying is screw every journalist that's died while covering the war and bringing the story back to the US? Since no one is twisting there arms, they die and so be it, so what?

No, but thanks for playing. Johnny, what do we have for our departing contestant?

Posted by: Michael at March 30, 2006 4:36 PM

Yeah, but "in your heart, you know he's right."

Posted by: Walter Maroney at March 30, 2006 4:36 PM


No, most of the journalist aren't collaborators.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2006 4:38 PM


Your analogy works better this way: one person is found in the back of an El Camino with an 8 year old boy with his pants around his ankles; another is one of a series of Westerners sympathetic to the insurgents who is released unharmed. You can't say with legal certainty that the first is a pedophile or the second a collaborator, but you don't have to pretend to be unable to draw logical conclusions about either.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2006 4:41 PM

Mr. Maroney:

Yes, he was.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2006 4:42 PM

I'd like to thank you, Judd and your monkeyboy Micheal for posting your views here and I'd like to request that you continue to do so.

You'll only feed the lost causes on the far right the kind of masturbatory propaganda they thrive on during the time they can't watch FoxNews while helping to push the rational people who happen across this sight further to the left before the coming elections.

So by all means, get your opinions out there. Let the voting public see they kind of halfwits that support the current gaggle of liars, thieves, and ethically bankrupt charlatans that currently hold the seats of power so that we can all run the other direction for fear of being associated with people that would attack the character of a kidnapping victim based entirely on the fact that she didn't say something you wanted her to and you didn't like her clothes.

Posted by: Phread01 at March 30, 2006 4:51 PM

OJ, the allegations about Osthoff having ransom money on her were reported by one magazine (Focus) that has never produced its anonymous source. According to Deutsch Welle:

"This story is packed with inconsistencies, which have to be cleared up," Wolfgang Bosbach, a deputy parliamentary leader for Germany's ruling Christian Democrats (CDU) told Die Welt newspaper.

Of course, I was able to find the allegation repeated on FreeRepublic and LittleGreenFootballs; but just quoting of the original Focus article.

I'm unconvinced by a single anonymous source no matter how often it is repeated.

As for Carroll's headscarf, do you suppose maybe she wore it to blend in? A good journalist will try to avoid becoming the story herself - by following the customs of the country they are covering.

Posted by: Bill at March 30, 2006 5:18 PM

May as well just come right out and say she was a willing participant.

It takes a true son-of-a-bitch to type such a thing. You wouldn't have the balls to say such a thing directly to her family. Not in a million years. The Carroll family and all of Jill's friends have been living a complete hell for months. She is finally free, and you just decide it's appropriate to piss all over her and accuse her of deceiving her family and the world.

You are a complete piece of Pelosi, or you are retarded. You owe Jill Carroll and her family an apology, just as soon as she gets back from the dentist.

Posted by: Young Goodman Brown at March 30, 2006 5:21 PM


They don't "kidnap" Westerners.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2006 5:25 PM

Just curious...
OJ, Michael, Brad, Judd, if I said this was a "swift-boating" of Jill Carrol, would you understand what I meant?

Posted by: Bill at March 30, 2006 5:35 PM

This is hands down one of the nastiest comments I have ever seen, anywhere. It's totally uncalled for and based on..what? Spite?

It takes a special kind of obnoxiousness to sneer that way in the face of someone you don't know and don't know anything about.

Posted by: Ducky at March 30, 2006 5:41 PM

Wow. Sometimes it's amazing what can function as troll-bait. This particular lot is even worse behaved than the crowd you'd get by putting up a "Free Beer" sign in Seattle's Pioneer Square.

But really. The nasty virulence, devoid of any attempt at pursuasion, of the counter-attacks on any attempt to question where Leftist sentiments (and patriotism) lie can't be anything but a reaction to hearing the truth.

I wonder how many of these trolls, who think it's inappropriate to question her motives and actions (like "Young Goodman Brown"), are the same people who have no problem with all the Left's conspiratorial rantings about Chimpy McBushitler's involvement with killing Americans on 11 September or his lies to get us into Iraq.

* * * *
You mean "swift-boating" as in telling some unpleasant truths about a liar and fraud, right? Or "swift-boating" as in attacking those who dare to tell the truth about your guy who can do no wrong? Then again, this Jill Carroll person hasn't told us about her secret CIA sponsered Christmas in Cambodia.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at March 30, 2006 5:41 PM

Calling this woman a "willing participant" the day she is released after being held in that hell hole for 30 days is simply sickening. You should be ashamed of yourself if your ignorant enough to believe that. That is the kind of mentality that has people trying to blow us up all over the world, and you wonder why??

Posted by: hawkeye at March 30, 2006 5:52 PM

BTW, he DOES control the weather. The US has been working to literally "OWN the weather" - their own comments. SERIOUSLY.

Maybe you should ask these questions on your own, do a bit of research and make your own conclusions instead of the ones that are spoon-fed to you daily.

War is Peace, dude.

Posted by: daphnexotique at March 30, 2006 6:04 PM

A willing participant? That absolutely ridiculous comment is exactly why the right is cannot be taken seriously. It also shows why most these conservative buffoons have completely missed the boat when it comes to Iraq. When will the dark side of Americana wake and see that its their own arrogance that has created this no win situation in Iraq.

Posted by: HGM at March 30, 2006 6:16 PM

Well, I just posted a long posting about the NWO and the "big idea" behind why all of this madness is happening. It was about world gov't, cashless society, martial law - all of these things the neo-cons are foaming at the mouth to "push the button" for...and it was censored entirely.

Well if you are a "spook site" disguised as a blog, now you have my IP address THREE times. Come and get me----and the MILLIONS more like me who THINK FOR THEMSELVES.

Posted by: daphnexotique at March 30, 2006 6:20 PM

"I save my compassion for those who deserve it."

What did she do to not deserve it?

Posted by: actus at March 30, 2006 6:24 PM


Some of you have so much HATE for the human race!! It is unbelieveable!!! The only blog I read is thinkprogressdotorg (which is how I found this hate mongering site) and compared to those "radical left-wingers". you all are real pieces of work!

Phread01 - YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD WITH THESE PEOPLE!!! I COULD NOT HAVE SAID IT BETTER MYSELF! "RATIONAL PEOPLE" - yes - about a measly 10% of us ---there are not enough of us. There are just too many people who blindly follow the establishment and the absolute crap they spew - this is why we are where we are in this country! WE HAVE NOT BEEN WATCHING THE STORE! And they are robbing this country blind!!!

Do any of you know the history of the Fed. "Rsrv" and how it was formed and how it works and how it directly relates to the deficit??? Do you know about Executive Order 11110?

Don't you people get it, this is not a two-party system, it's the N-e-w W-o-r-l-d O-r-d-e-r "a big idea", right GHWB? It's one agenda disguised as two - world gov't, cashless society, break up of the family - F-A-S-C-I-S-M. And I am ready to leave this country.

And all of you brainless idiots out there who don't think the NWO will serve YOUR head on a platter TOO are just wrong. You are the ones with the STOCKHOLM SYNDROME. You are the ones loyal to your captors and unwilling to look at them with an OBJECTIVE, UNBIASED regard.

It is more COMFORTABLE for you to sit back and take their word as "God" rather than actually THINKING CRITICALLY and asking yourself, "Cui bono??????"

You people need to understand that if you don't speak up when atrocities are being committed to other people, who will speak up for you when it is your turn???

Get a clue, you Big Brother lovin' sociopaths, on The Big Picture - you know, the one the entire outside world sees.

Oh yeah, and get ready for M-artial L-aw after the next at-t-ack the N-W-O is planning. They're practicing in iraq as we speak.

One more thing, for those of you who will trash me after this posting, and I may or may not come back to this hatemongering site - but let me tell you, I am an 11th generation MAYFLOWER descendant and I love this country and all of the wonderful things that go with it, that I did not mention and do truly appreciate. But I figured out who has the most to gain by making this country a nightmare and taking our freedoms away - and it was not "al-C-I-A-da.

Posted by: daphnexotique at March 30, 2006 6:28 PM

What's the difference between Jill Carroll and Daniel Pearl?

Pearl opposed what his "kidnappers" were doing.

Posted by: Mary Rosh at March 30, 2006 6:35 PM

It strikes me that you pretty much have to be as nutty as the folks posting these comments to truly believe that this series of "hostages" who've been released unharmed after cash payments to the terrorists or extensive propaganda usage are all innocent victims.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2006 6:37 PM


Yes, John Kerry's assistance to the North Vietnamese is of a piece.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2006 6:41 PM


So, I like to think of myself as a rational guy.

When someone tells me something, I ask myself, "Does it make sense? Is it internally consistent? Is there any evidence? Is there, perhaps, an ajenda behind what is being said?

I don't buy the left-wing conspiracies about September 11th; and although I have a healthy fear of fascism, I'm not nearly as convinced as daphnexotique above.

I think that George Bush sincerely believes he is doing the right thing when he institutes policies (I give him the benefit of the doubt). I just think he isn't good at evaluating the effects of his actions, and he isn't looking at the things that are important to me (like the future of the middle class, for example).

The Swift Boat story didn't hold water (35 years later these guys suddenly realize Kerry doesn't deserve a purple heart?). It was a partisan attack - that certainly doesn't mean John Kerry was the second coming neither.

This story about fake hostages has no basis in reality. Think about it. If Osthoff was kidnapped "to shake down (her) own government for money for the terrorists" (as you said), why did she (alledgedly) have the money on her? Right, so she split the money with her captors, but she brought it back with her so that the police could find it? It's a ridiculous accusation without a shred of actual evidence.

I can understand disagreeing with someone over something like whether a minimum wage law negatively affects the job market; but we are talking about a thoroughly baseless assertion (that Carrol was complicit in her kidnapping).

This is just brainless partisan sniping.

Posted by: Bill at March 30, 2006 7:07 PM


Did John Kerry work with vets against the war or not?

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2006 7:13 PM

But ... don't you get it ... the Federal Reserve is people.

Posted by: David Cohen at March 30, 2006 7:24 PM

How can any of these troll comments be taken seriously? Vulgarity never carries the argument. A string like this makes one appreciate the reasoned discourse usually found on this blog all the more.

Posted by: erp at March 30, 2006 7:26 PM


Yes, (you know the answer) John Kerry worked with Vietnam Veterans Against the War for some time after he returned from Vietnam. That was his right - the same as you and I have a right to free assembly. Did it serve to demoralize soldiers in the field? Maybe. He thought it was the right thing to do, in order to end the war. You would be completely reasonable to argue (as my dad does) that his actions were unpatriotic (and then we could even argue about what constitutes patriotism - perhaps even dissent?). But to publish a book with unfounded, unprovable accusations about how he didn't earn his medals, is just not reasonable. Public discourse should be founded on a certain basis of accuracy and evidence instead of innuendo, which brings us back to the topic at hand, Jill Carrol. For a simple test, ask yourself, "would this be admissable in a court of law?" Hearsay from anonymous sources is a crap basis for accuracy.

Maybe Carrol isn't acting exactly like you figure you would act in the situation. Two things: 1) maybe you don't know how you would act. 2) She's she; you are you. You probably are not a professional journalist who has gone to Iraq to cover a war. Maybe she's a very level-headed person who is incredibly relieved to be able to see her family again.

By the way, is this OJ as in Orrin Judd? If yes, nice job on the blog - very nicely put together. Having said that, though, this story is really a steaming pile.

Posted by: Bill at March 30, 2006 7:33 PM


Certainly people have the right to support communists or Islamicists and work against their own country, but they don't have a right not to be criticized for it.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2006 7:41 PM

Yes, Bill, if you think "Swiftboating" is a good thing, then I am all for it in this case;)

Sorry, too many comparisons to Yvonne Ridley for me to consider this staged "release" a good thing.

Posted by: Brad S at March 30, 2006 7:45 PM

I really don't understand the problem. The kidnappers imprisoned this person for 3 months. They are clearly bad people who did at least one bad thing. Why does the fact that they didn't beat or kill Carrol bother you?

Are you concerned that it makes it harder to dehumanize the insurgency?

Guess what? The insurgents are, in fact, human. They are/were some foreign terrorists in Iraq, but the majority of the insurgency is home-grown (even Rumsfeld says so). Maybe some of them want this foreign army (the US) out of their country. According to polls, 80% of the Iraqi population wants the US to leave. How would you feel if the Chinese or the Brazilians were occupying your town?

Don't get me wrong. I don't want anyone shooting at us. I want every one of our soldiers to come home alive and proud. I think the intentions of the administration were good. But it just doesn't work to go into another country and "change regimes" (look at Iran).

Posted by: Bill at March 30, 2006 7:47 PM

"Certainly people have the right to support communists or Islamicists and work against their own country, but they don't have a right not to be criticized for it."

OJ, did you read the entire post? Go ahead criticize, but try to keep it above the belt. Stick to accurate, reliable facts. Speaking of which, Michael points out that Kerry met with VC and NV representatives in Paris. Great, criticize away. I don't think that's treason, but we could talk about it. Wild allegations about staged kidnappings (without any evidence) are about as valuable as concoctions about aledged liquid metal in the wreckage of the world trade center - i.e. they're good for cleaning your rear end before leaving the outhouse.

Posted by: Bill at March 30, 2006 7:55 PM

It is disgusting that from behind the comfort of your computers you can castigate a person who at least has put her own life on the line to ascertain some semblance of truth.

Do you have no shame?

Posted by: eddie at March 30, 2006 7:55 PM


I'M saying yu have to consider the likelihood that if it had been a real event they'd have killed her. It seems closer to the staged events like the Italian and German women.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2006 7:57 PM


At least we agree that John Kerry flirted with treason.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2006 7:58 PM

all of these troll comments seem to be from the same pen. they remind me of a monkey on crack with a week's worth of feces at hand.

Posted by: toe at March 30, 2006 8:09 PM


John Kerry is in many ways an opportunist that I have a hard time respecting. George Bush... well, makes Kerry look like an incredibly intelligent, principled, capable leader of men.

And, I haven't seen anything (except the Focus article quoting an unnamed source) that says the German hostages were anything but in the wrong place at the wrong time.

There are all kinds of people in Iraq. Why is it hard to believe that some people would kidnap so that they can behead people in the name of Allah, and some would kidnap for money, and some would kidnap without really wanting to kill the victim?

Do you think they have a coordinated guild of kidnappers that must all follow some protocol?

Posted by: Bill at March 30, 2006 8:09 PM

Re: in your heart you know he's right. Barry Goldwater was right about a lot of things. Remember his stance on gays in the military? ("You don't have to be straight to be a straight shooter.") Guess that makes old Barry a fuzzy headed liberal like me, huh?

Barry Goldwater would piss on you spineless degenerates. You are the toxic residue of Goldwater's ideals.

Posted by: Walter Maroney at March 30, 2006 8:10 PM


It's surpassing odd that giving liberty to eastern Europe, South East Asia, the Middle East etc. is what you guys think dehumanizing.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2006 8:11 PM


Yes, it seems that they're rather well organized and know who to take for what reasons.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2006 8:14 PM

OJ, but that's just it. We can't GIVE liberty to people. People have to take liberty for themselves! It's a definition thing. To paraphrase, it's like f*cking for virginity.

By the way, are you Orrin Judd? The author of this thing?

Posted by: Bill at March 30, 2006 8:22 PM

OJ, really? You think all of the kidnappings in Iraq are coordinated? Who's behind it? Perhaps its just kind of lawless there.

Posted by: Bill at March 30, 2006 8:30 PM


No, we generally give it to them. Ask a Holocaust survivor.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2006 8:36 PM

Open mouth. Insert Jackboot.

Posted by: xoites at March 30, 2006 8:43 PM

All this based on what she was wearing and what she said while in the SUNNI POLITICAL PARTY HQ to BAHGDAD TELEVISION.

I don't care if I had burn marks, bruises and cuts all over my face, I would say the same damn thing until I were back on US soil.

Posted by: Jen at March 30, 2006 9:06 PM


No, it has nothing to do with what she was wearing.

We said awhile ago that it seemed like the other staged kidnappings and that she was going to be releaed unharmed and then--surprise!--she was.

It's certainly possible that she was genuinely taken after being in the wrong place at the wrong time and was lucky enough to fall in with a bunch of really decent guys who reconsidered their demands. But to bbelieve that requires a certain, difficult to muster, credulity.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2006 9:12 PM

Just because someone predicted the release of a hostage, doesn't mean she was in collusion with her kidnappers. *Other* journalists were also released. And the big broughaha has been about how she was dressed, as if that was deciding factor about her kidnapping/release being real. As for her attire, I really don't think she had the opportunity to go to Bloomingdales, do you?

And I agree with Jen, I would have said they walked on water until I was back on US soil surrounded by an armed Marine escort.

Posted by: Nowonmai at March 30, 2006 9:20 PM


Yes, and it's accepted that the Italian and German journalists likely colluded. [the Italian woman, though her story is so contradictory that it's hard to take anything she says seriouslty, told the BBC that her "captors" let her go once they knew she was working against the "occupation".]

What brouhaha?

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2006 9:23 PM

WOW! I don't read Kos or DU or the other moonbats.
Guess I'm not missing much in terms of intelligent discourse. Thanks for the education youse folks, and thanks for the entertainment.

Posted by: jdkelly at March 30, 2006 9:25 PM

OJ, it’s time for you to present something other than thinly stretched circumstantial evidence to support your unfounded assertions blaming the victims of abduction in Iraq for their own abductions.

[Editor's Note:]

I find it amazing that I could quote reliable sources trusted without regard to political affiliation (at least until they spoke out) and prove that Bush purposefully suppressed the fact that there was conflicting intelligence on the presence of WMDs in Iraq as he sold the war to the country and to congress and you would, in the face of that evidence, disregard it. But you have no problem, without a shred of actual evidence or even a hint of suggestion from anyone who has had first hand knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the abduction of Jill Carroll, believing that she staged her own hostage situation.

But in light of your obvious quest for truth and enlightenment so that you may bestow upon all of us the benefits of your keen insight, might I suggest that you go to Iraq, hang out at the troublespot you’ve identified as the best place to get abducted until someone picks you up, and then, upon your release, tell us how you worked in collusion with your kidnappers since you seem to think everyone else that didn’t die must have been conspirators as well.

Oh, and if they kill you, we’ll believe that you were a victim. Hey…isn’t that they same logic they used in Salem?

Posted by: Phread01 at March 30, 2006 9:48 PM


To the contrary, I think it a truism that the intelligence regarding wha Saddamn was doing was contradictory--our intelligence services seldom get anything right. We didn't depose him because of WMD but because he was a tyrannt in violation of the 1991 cease fire and succeeding UN resolutions:

I oppose the terrorists, not the "occupation" so I would be killed as have all those who were working on behalf of the reconstruction who got taken. Only those who oppose the war have been released unharmed.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2006 10:29 PM

I suppose Jill Carroll is on a higher moral plane than Rachel Corrie.

But that's not saying much.

BTW, with respect to the general level of trolldom on this thread, I must say something that has been on my mind for a long time.

I note that the US (President Bush, any number of senators, etc.) could have thrown the entire nation into a rage immediately after 9/11 if he had trumpeted the story of Christine Hanson, the 2 and-a-half year old girl who was on one of the WTC planes. She was going to Disneyland in CA with her parents. Other than women who may have been pregnant, I believe she was the youngest victim on that day.

How easy it would have been to make her the symbol. How easy it would have been to exploit her death as a point for revenge. "Remember Pearl Harbor!" How about "Remember Christine Hanson!"

But that didn't happen. I think her picture was shown once on the news, and that was it.

I have always thought this says something about America. The pictures of the jumpers at the WTC haven't been shown since probably 9/12, but that seems to be due more to media bias. But why not Christine Hanson? Surely Katie or Diane or Larry would want to interview a relative, to ask about Christine and her plane ride*. But maybe, just maybe, it is not who we are. We may hate the enemy, but we don't demonize him.

The trolls scream all day long that the US is evil, that Bush=Hitler, and all other sorts of vicious nonsense. However, the real tyrants in the world are glad that none of it is true. They know, even if the trolls do not.

Remember Christine Hanson. Not for revenge, but as a memory of that terrible day. And for the better future we are trying to build in Iraq. And Afghanistan. And for the resolve to stand against the evils in the world, who want to kill more Christines.

*such an interview may have happened for all I know - but I hope not

Posted by: ratbert at March 30, 2006 11:00 PM

My criticism was turned into a link for his book?

I mentioned the irony of the that subtitle considering the accusations in his post.

Battles are lost if conservatives or lliberals reach this kind of rank cynicism.

Posted by: Ducky at March 30, 2006 11:05 PM


Yes, thanks for plugging the book--it sounds like you'd learn quite a bit from it.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2006 11:08 PM

OJ -

I didn't plug the book. I noticed what a wide berth there was between the high-minded title of that book and the nasty rhetoric above.

Why the fear about leaving in my criticism? What does anyone gain from such speculation about a person who's done nothing wrong?

Posted by: Lucky at March 30, 2006 11:12 PM


I went to the links that you posted in your editors note. One was the same story from the one German magazine based on a single unnamed source. The other was an Italian woman who said she was not going to get kidnapped because she was not working with the Americans.

I already told you that one unnamed source who alledgedly saw some money (in a story that doesn't even make sense) is no basis for me to believe that the two Germans staged their kidnapping. And the other story doesn't even suggest that the eventual kidnapping of the Italian woman was staged. Do you understand the concept of evidence?

Let me give you an example:

If I say George W. Bush is a miserable failure as a president because he colluded with CIA agents to plant explosives at the WTC and pentagon and staged highjackings in order to blame the explosions on muslim terrorists, I would be an idiot.

However, if I say George Bush is a miserable failure as a president because he started an unnecessary and stunningly expensive war that has destabilized the middle east and become unwinable, while simultaneously increasing domestic spending and giving tax cuts disproportionally to the wealthy (the only time taxes have been cut in this country during a war) ensuring that our descendents are burdened with a 9 TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT, I would have made a credible argument.

Do you understand the difference?

One has a basis in fact. One has a basis in la-la land.

Posted by: Bill at March 30, 2006 11:17 PM


She was "kidnapped" got the Italian government to transfer millions to the terrorists she supports and was released unharmed. The German woman did the same, though she even kept money for her own use.

Destabilizing dictatorships is a victory for the United States, it's all we've done for the past hundred years as we've tripled the number of democracies. A debt that's just 3/4 of GDP during a global war is absuurdly low. That's the cool thing, we can liberalize the globe on the cheap now.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2006 11:23 PM

Ratbert, the story of Christine Hanson is incredibly sad, as are the stories of thousands of others from September 11. Unfortunately, nothing we are doing in Iraq does anything to prevent another terrorist attack here.

Furthermore, the invasion of Iraq was planned before the September 11 attack. If you haven't heard this, I suggest you look into the project for the new american century (PNAC) (I believe Wolfowitz is the most direct link to the administration - although others were involved).

George Bush has dropped the ball on port security, and he hasn't addressed remarkable inefficiencies in the Dept. of Homeland Security exposed during Katrina.

As I said before, I continue to believe Bush is well-intentioned. I think he just has bad ideas and is too stubborn to learn from his mistakes.

Posted by: Bill at March 30, 2006 11:27 PM

"That's the cool thing, we can liberalize the globe on the cheap now."


It just gets crazier. And more glib.

And BTW, are you volunteering?

Posted by: Ducky at March 30, 2006 11:29 PM


Indeed, the war in Iraq was required by the UN resolutions.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2006 11:31 PM


A tad long in the tooth, but happy to pay for it.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2006 11:33 PM

"A tad long in the tooth" is nothing but an excuse. If you're so giddy for war, I'm sure they can find you a job at as a civilian.

It's been instructive. A man who's too cowardly to even leave a criticism that wasn't that harsh is glib and gleeful at the thought of
"liberalizing" the world - or in other words - go to endless war. But he wants no part of the dirty work. And let's not even mention the willful avoidance of how that war in Iraq is going, as we "speak".

Thank Jesus, I know many fine, sane conservatives. They are nothing like this.

Posted by: Ducky at March 30, 2006 11:42 PM


Irony? My side wants an Iraq that's a liberal democracy and yours wishes we'd left Saddam in place. It's hardly ironic that the former is the moral high ground.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2006 11:42 PM

"Destabilizing dictatorships is a victory for the United States, it's all we've done for the past hundred years as we've tripled the number of democracies. A debt that's just 3/4 of GDP during a global war is absuurdly low. That's the cool thing, we can liberalize the globe on the cheap now."


Okay, well, I guess that's one view...

I'd suggest you continue to study history and math with an open mind. Your interpretation of history (have you ever read about the coup that installed the Shah in Iran?) is different than mine. Your math boggles my mind (have you ever had credit card debt?).

This is a great country that can do some great things. Only a few things can hold us back. Those would include willful ignorance and fear - both of which you seem to have in spades.

Cheers, I'm going to bed.

Posted by: Bill at March 30, 2006 11:42 PM


The war is won. The process of building a stable liberal democracy, or two or three, proceeds apace. Pretty good work in just three years.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2006 11:44 PM


Yes, the coup in Iran was a mistake--we make mistakes. Liberating Iraq isn't one. Your support for Saddam is.

Did you attend college? What was your debt and what was your salary the year you graduated? Do you own a home? What was the debt you took on as a percentage of your salary? If you want to think of the government as a person--a not terribly appropriate comparison--at least be rigorous about it. The government has far less debt than the average college grad or new homeowner.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2006 11:46 PM

I'm curious about your view on Reagan's and Rumsfeld's support for Saddam?

Posted by: Bill at March 30, 2006 11:49 PM

Oj, a little excerpt from your link to the speech that Bush made to the UN in 2002, paving the way for his invasion of Iraq, in which, according to you, he did not use WMDs as a justification:

Today, these standards, and this security, are challenged. Our commitment to human dignity is challenged by persistent poverty and raging disease. The suffering is great, and our responsibilities are clear. The United States is joining with the world to supply aid where it reaches people and lifts up lives, to extend trade and the prosperity it brings, and to bring medical care where it is desperately needed.

As a symbol of our commitment to human dignity, the United States will return to UNESCO. (Applause.) This organization has been reformed and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights and tolerance and learning.

Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts -- ethnic and religious strife that is ancient, but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living side by side with Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices. My nation will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.

Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction, and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.

In one place -- in one regime -- we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region.

In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

And my point wasn’t that the intelligence was conflicting. My point was that the Bush administration completely covered up the existence of any of that conflicting information. Congress was briefed on executive summaries that had been purposefully trimmed of any hint of dissent or anything that would give the legislature pause before supporting Bush’s manufactured war.”

Posted by: Phread01 at March 30, 2006 11:49 PM

One more thing, OJ - and I pray you're a nine year old troll who's playing around and not a grown man. Don't add to your smugness by assuming what I wanted. And don't presume to speak for all conservatives.

You have no moral ground from the things you're spouting off here.

And stop taking credit for the people who are doing the actual heavy lifting and putting their lives and bodies at risk. That's arrogant beyond all belief.

But then - that seems to define you.

Farewell..back to Sanity Land..out of Bush Cult- ville.

Posted by: Lucky at March 30, 2006 11:50 PM


So you do approve of the regime change but are quarreling with some style points?

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2006 11:54 PM

I'll be the first to admit, I don't understand economics especially when you get into the country-level scale. But when Grover Norquist and Alan Greenspan start agreeing with Robert Bixby and Ed Hall, all of them saying we are getting into serious trouble, I think you've got to start listening.

I don't think its as simple as "America is taking out a mortgage".

Posted by: Bill at March 30, 2006 11:56 PM


Yes, note that the WMD are not the justification for the war, just a rather minor part of a legalistic and moralistic case.

Sure, he lied about the intelligence. The freedom of the Iraqi people was certainly worth a few lies.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2006 11:58 PM

Well Bill,

Grover is against the run up in debt because he is a "starve the beast" cultist and also had this little issue involving certain Islamist folks. This greatly reduced his standing in the NeoCon/GOP/Bush inner circle. And Alan Greenspan tried to take a whack at 20% of the economy before, mercifully, retiring.

I should listen to whom, again. And I thought you were going to bed.

Posted by: Brad S at March 30, 2006 11:59 PM

I'd just suggest that you are talking about the freedom of the _surviving_ Iraqi people.

Posted by: Bill at March 30, 2006 11:59 PM


We've done a lot of stupid things as regards Iran because the hostage crisis got our knickers in a twist. We should have aided them very publicly in their war with Saddam. The Persian people are our allies.

Posted by: oj at March 31, 2006 12:00 AM


Take a look at British debt to GDP ratios for defeating Napoleon--250%--or American to defeat the Axis powers--150%. Today we're at 75% with the Middle East liberalizing quickly. World War IV has been a bargain.

Posted by: oj at March 31, 2006 12:03 AM


This isn't Starship Troopers. The notion that you have to go fight to express a political opinion is fascist.

Posted by: oj at March 31, 2006 12:04 AM


You mean like the 15 million surviving Iraqis who just voted?

Of course, had we continued the sanctions that had killed 500,000 Iraqi children and left Saddam in power--who'd killed 600,000 to over a million--there'd be far fewer survivors. But then, it isn't about Iraqis' lives is it? It's about your feelings.

Posted by: oj at March 31, 2006 12:07 AM

Oj, the Iranian hostage crisis occured more than 20 years after the installation of the Shah. Many argue that it was a result of our intitial interference.

Saddam's military was built by Reagan and Rumsfeld. We've been trying to pull strings in the middle east since the 1920's. When are we going to learn from the mistakes that even you admit we have made?

Brad, Norquist is on the outs? Well, good, I never liked him. At least his math worked, though.

And you're right. I was going to bed. You folks are so darn interesting. I never know where you'll go next. War on Christianity?

Posted by: Bill at March 31, 2006 12:07 AM


Yes, so? The coup was still a mistake--the kind Realists always make because they prefer stability to freedom. You were asking though about our tilt towards Saddam in the Iran/Iraq war. That was a mistake too, caused by our petulance.

No, they didn't. You'll likely have noticed that Saddam didn't have American weapons. That's an old canard.

Posted by: oj at March 31, 2006 12:12 AM


If your last statement was a sop to George Santayana, let me remind you that Santayana was on Crystal Meth when he made his famous observation:)

We always fail to "learn" from past mistakes. That is why we birth successive generations; so they can learn certain follies for themselves. Like learning that certain technologies (from airlines to Google) can be used against them as well as for their own benefit.

Something you haven't learned, apparently.

Posted by: Brad S at March 31, 2006 12:15 AM

OJ, why do I have to be pro-Saddam to be against the war in Iraq? Were you among the conservatives who were opposed to involvement in Kosavo and Somalia? Something about "no national interest", "not worth risking American lives". Were you pro-Milosovich and pro-Aidid?

This was an unwinable war from the start. It's a lot easier to blow things up than to build them.

Posted by: Bill at March 31, 2006 12:17 AM


If you didn't want to remove Saddam then you were pro-Saddam, no?

No, I thought we should stay in Somalia until we had Aidid's head on a pike and we should intervene on the side of the Serbs but to end the killing in the Balkans and depose Milosevic.

The war is won. Kurdistan and Shi'astan are thriving. Some question remains as to whether the Sunni in the central region can accept being governed by Shi'ites or whether they'll have to leave the country entirely. That'll work itself out over time. A bit of a dustup is to be expected when the 20% who ran a country for hundreds of years have to yield power to the majority.

Posted by: oj at March 31, 2006 12:22 AM

OJ, Saddam had American-made nerve gas until 1991.

Brad, I'm not familiar with Santayana (or his crank habit), which statement was his?

Are you using google against me? Damnit, you are diabolical.

Posted by: Bill at March 31, 2006 12:23 AM

Brad, Bixby and Hall maintain the US debt clock. They are economists who are very concerned about our national deficit.

OJ, good luck with all the wars. We're making enemies faster than we can kill them.

Now, for real, I'm going to bed.

Posted by: Bill at March 31, 2006 12:27 AM

OJ. Thanks. I've finally figured out where you are coming from.

"The freedom of the Iraqi people was certainly worth a few lies."

You believe that in lying to the American people and the elected Legislature of this country, which directly resulted in starting a war which has killed over 2,000 American citizens, injured 18,000 more, and lead to the deaths of 60,000 Iraqi civilians, Bush was not only justified, he was doing the right thing.

Posted by: Phread01 at March 31, 2006 12:27 AM


Are you seriously suggesting that liberating a people who live in a dictatorship isn't worth a few lies? Should we reinstate Hitler just because FDR lied?

Posted by: oj at March 31, 2006 12:29 AM


No, the allegation is that we didn't protest strongly enough when the Iraqis informed us that they would use chemical weapons, not that we supplied them. The criticism of our acquiescence is certainly justified. We're a big nation and we should have gotten over the hostage crisis.

Posted by: oj at March 31, 2006 12:32 AM


We're reforming the Middle East even faster.

Have a good night.

Posted by: oj at March 31, 2006 12:33 AM

The war has cost $250 billion over three years, or less than 1% of GDP. That's cheap.

About 1700 Americans have died from hostile fire. That's regrettable and their sacrifice must be honored. It is also, by any historical comparison, a stunning success. Even if you disagree, I don't see how this casualty rate is even close to the point that would mean the war is necessarily a failure. If you disagree with the war, than it's not worth one life. If you agree with the war, than this casualty rate shouldn't change your mind.

Iraq was a Soviet client state. It bought Soviet weaponry. The US did provide some support, primarily intelligence, after the war with Iran went bad and Iran invaded. That helped stop Iran from capturing Iraq's oil fields. How was that not in our best interest? We provided Saddam with very little in the way of weaponry, much less that France and Germany.

Not supporting the Shi'a uprising after the first Gulf War was both immoral and a strategic error that we have now put right.

The current national debt ($8,367,661,575,867.99) is, as a percentage of GDP, low compared to other OECD nations. Japan's debt, for example, is 150% of GDP. This is particularly strking if we consider only non-intergovernment debt ($4,862,592,353,333.51), as we should. That lowers the total debt to about 40% of GDP, which is, historically, absurdly low.

Posted by: David Cohen at March 31, 2006 12:41 AM

Bill: Saddam never had American made nerve gas. That's an internet myth. We provided Iraq with some anthrax spores, which were provided to anyone who asked for agricultural research. We allowed the sale of some dual use technology, although nothing all that fancy, and some precurser chemicals, which were also dual use. That technology and those chemicals have never been shown to have been used in Saddam's WMD programs.

Posted by: David Cohen at March 31, 2006 1:00 AM

Those irate at OJ over his suspicions might want to redirect their ire at the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz this morning, since he's voicing questions of his own about her post-release reactions.

Ms. Carroll may just be the 21st Century equivalent of Patricia Hearst after her kidnapping by the SLA, but based on the previous incidents involving the German and Italian hostages and their similar calm demeanors following their return from "captivity", you'd have to be either wildy naieve or deliberately obtuse not to wonder if we're dealing with the same thing here, whether it proves to be true or not.

Posted by: John at March 31, 2006 10:40 AM

OJ, I'm sure you won't share this perspective since these lies haven't put you personally at risk on a battlefield. I would also venture a guess that you have no relatives or close friends that have died in this conflict in Iraq. My opinion is that a lie that, by it's nature, puts the lives of others at risk, is never forgivable.

Even your advocacy of “the end justifies the means” in this case doesn’t apply because the ends have become a tragedy of errors themselves. Throw out as many hypothetical and unproven numbers as you wish about how many Iraqi lives we’ve saved by going into Iraq (after all, Saddam IS on trial for ordering the slaughter of almost 900 people, so obviously he’s killed hundreds of millions). The hard truth is that we’ve killed over 2,000 Americans and caused the deaths of 60,000 Iraqis as a result of Bush’s lies. Those are real numbers. Not the baseless product of a pundit’s imagination. And yes, I say a lie that costs over 60,000 lives is an unforgivable lie.

If he wanted to present the truth and let America decide if sacrificing our sons and daughters to oust the regime in Iraq, that's fine. But lying to ensure we approve his war on false pretense is another. I, personally, would prefer to know why I am risking my life before I do it.

Would America choose to go to war to protect itself from a madman building WMDs and plotting to unleash them on our populace? Yes. Would America choose to go to war to exact revenge on a terrorist organization and root them out of their safe havens? Yes. Would America choose to go to war to protect a people from their own governments? Maybe, although we didn't go to Rwanda, haven't gone to the Sudan, and did nothing to intervene when Pol Pot was killing 3 million of his people, so maybe not. The point is that it's the right of the legislature, as the voice of the people to authorize a war based on the FACTS.

Your advocacy of the president using whatever means necessary to do what he thinks is best is based in no way whatsoever on the pricipals of democracy or republicanism. You're advocating dictatorship, and you're delusional if you don't see it.

Perhaps you're happy to live as a serf under the regime of King George II, but I choose to defend the principals under which this country was founded rather than embracing the doctrine of the fear-mongers as they lie and distort in their play to grab as much power as they can.

And for the last time, back on the original topic, but incorporating your advocacy of lies, I’ll ask what the greater good was you were trying to serve by supporting a manufactured story about Jill Carroll. Did you think that by accusing this victim of plotting her own abduction you would somehow save the country from the crazy left-wingers that have the limited view that their president shouldn’t lie to them and to their Congress in order to start a war? Never mind. You’ve used nothing but deflection tactics to avoid addressing your opinions and I expect nothing more this time.

Posted by: Phread01 at March 31, 2006 11:01 AM


So few have died that almost no one has friends or relatives who have. It's been an essentially cost free war. Indeed, it raises the question of how one can morally oppose replacing dictators when we can do it so easily.

I suggested that Ms Carroll's story has a strong echo of the untruths surrounding both the Italian and German women who were "taken" but then "released" after they'd served their purpose. Mr. Kurtz has merely begun the process that will expose the inconsistencies.

I don't get the bit about Leftwing crazies. As soon as Hillary Clinton becomes president she'll use the military to tpple anoyther dictator, just like her husband did. The Left generally only opposes wars when Republicans are president.

Posted by: oj at March 31, 2006 11:10 AM

If it makes you feel better, Phread, the President didn't lie. Lefties like OJ just like to pretend that he did.

Posted by: David Cohen at March 31, 2006 11:15 AM

could you possibly be any more of a jackass?

just asking.

Posted by: jethro at March 31, 2006 11:40 AM

You gonna take that, David?

Posted by: oj at March 31, 2006 11:44 AM

I'll be sure to tell my neighbor, the widow with 2 children under the age of 5, that her husband's death via the process of being imbedded with shrapnel from an exploding device was cost free.

And I'm certain that the mothers of my two friends I was commissioned with, but who died in the desert for a lie you support will be relieved to know that their sons lives are inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

The 10,000+ servicemembers who have been permanently disabled in Iraq should be happy to know that their inability to function as a normal person means nothing. They should just strap on their artificial limbs or don their eyepatches or pull themselves into their wheelchairs and realize that the war is cost-free.

My parting wish to you, OJ, is for you to be granted the priviledge of laying your life on the line for a lie and, as a result, meet with a similar 'cost-free' occurance.

Posted by: Phread01 at March 31, 2006 11:56 AM


Yes, note that 10,000 is a couple hours worth of dead from a Civil War battle at a time when the population was a fraction of what it is today. This is basically a casualty free war. Though, of course, we mourn the lost and sympathize with those injured in this good cause.

Posted by: oj at March 31, 2006 12:05 PM

THis has got to be the biggest bunch or idiotic bantar i have ever heard...I would give my own freedom to be locked away for three months with one of you idiots who think that Jill Carroll is anything less than a courageous and level headed woman just to watch you wine and cry like the pathetic loser you are.

Someone commented that she will no doubt get face time on the TV networks suggesting that she's somehow to blame for the logical fame that will follow such an is some advice for those who are so offended by such a thing...don't watch.

Had she come out of this denouncing the kidnappers with some pungent sterotypical slander, I'll bet you'd be begging to see her on TV.

"Casualty free war..." way to boil it down for all those non-casualty widows and orphans...I don't believe people like this actually have the brainpower to articulate in written language...

Posted by: JM at March 31, 2006 1:52 PM

At least 35,000 people in excess of normal were dying in Iraq every year under the UN sactions, most of them children.

If 60,000 non-combantant Iraqis have been killed as a result of the U.S./UK invasion and occupation, then over the past three years we've SAVED a net 45,000 lives, compared to the UN sanction regime.

More importantly, the Iraqis are no longer oppressed by a literally sadistic tyrant.
They have hope, and opportunity.

77% of Iraqis feel that getting rid of Saddam was worth the cost in Iraqi lives, and that's including Sunnis, who very much regret Saddam's downfall.

Take out the Sunnis, and roughly 90% of Kurds and Shi'ites are willing to accept those 60,000 dead, if that's the cost of liberation.

Remember, 400,000 Iraqis died in the decade-long Iran/Iraq war, and maybe 25,000 more in '91, plus those who died due to the sanctions - Iraqis are used to violent deaths in their society.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 31, 2006 1:56 PM

The troll-frenzy seems to be attacking anyone who dares question St.Jill, as I've seen several other sites comment on the number and viciousness of the emails and postings. The question is, why? What is it about this woman that makes her exempt from any question about her behavior andbrings out such wonderfully thoughtful, articulate, and open minded defenders like "jethro" , "jm", "xoites" and "lucky/ducky"?

Looks like the Left has stolen the conservatives' secret recipe for producing vast numbers of "mind-numbed robots following orders" and putting it to good use.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at March 31, 2006 2:01 PM

I'll pose the same question back to you...take away the one phrase that she said regarding her treatment...what do you base your severe and completely off-balance criticism on? And ask yourself...had she not said something that clearly doesn't jibe with what wingnuts would like the American people to believe as the stereotype of all who oppose this war...would this conversation be taking place?

Posted by: JM at March 31, 2006 2:08 PM


It has nothing to do with what she said but that everyone knew she'd live to say it and she did.

Posted by: oj at March 31, 2006 2:31 PM



Posted by: oj at March 31, 2006 2:34 PM

oj: your so you, i wish she hadn't lived to say it. so much better off when america hating journalists just die. that way we can rely on really thought provoking honest debate like that present here....

what the hell are you talking about? what crazy conspiracy ring are you caught up in? Jeez...if you had information guaranteeing she'd live through this ordeal it would have been appropriate to share it with the rest of the WORLD! we were all a little concerned.

Posted by: JM at March 31, 2006 3:57 PM


That's the point, we did. I realize you were probably brought here for the first time by some hysterical link about the mean Right, but we've been tracking these stories for some time and her case seemed rather similar to others where folks who oppose the war end up being released unharmed after large transfers of cash from their governments--if they're European--or after serving some propaganda purpose.

I'm glad she's okay but find her story dubious.

Posted by: oj at March 31, 2006 4:06 PM

What story do you people find "dubious?" All she's said is that she was treated well. If the fact that her captors treated her well is what smells fishy, maybe we should suggest to her Iraqi kidnappers that in the future they should at least rough up their captives, so all the blowhards back here in the states so eager to pass judgement will be more convinced.

Her captors were demanding the release of Iraqi women from prison. Some of which were claimed to have been held as bait for their father/husband/brother insurgents at large. It's not inconceivable that her captors had respect for women, even if it was the "burkah" kind of respect.

Posted by: Gleut at March 31, 2006 4:13 PM

Well I have to say...with sleuths like you on the case I guess the government need not worry about gathering intelligence anymore...

Where were ya on the whole WMDs thing huh? Sure could've used you on that one.

Do you realize that your "theory" (I offer that with some degree of hesitency) is about as ridiculous sounding to those of us not totally divorced from reality as the far left claiming that dubya crashed those planes into the WTC in order to start a war? You do realize that right? I mean correct?

Posted by: JM at March 31, 2006 4:16 PM

WMD were a pretext that W let Blair and Powell try selling. the war was about liberating Iraq.

I don't expect people who prefer Saddam to examine the Carroll case with a wary eye.

Posted by: oj at March 31, 2006 4:25 PM


Great. I'm glad she was treated so well. But, if she was, why'd she make the video?

Posted by: oj at March 31, 2006 4:26 PM

Hmmm....great question oj...why would she have made that video...hmm...I mean...wait, no...let me think about don't suppose it had anything to do with that fact that she was being held against her will by masked men with machine guns and like you or i probably would have done/said just about anything to see the people she loves once more before she DIES!

nah...couldn't be that.

when you say prefer saddam? do you mean prefer him to:

a) kim jong
b) the repressive regime of sudan
c) combatting world wide hunger
d) combatting domestic poverty
e) protecting innocent bystanders from being killed
f) narrow minded fascists idiots who don't know the meaning of self evaluation

could you clarify...i mean i'd hate to be a presumptuous ass and put words in your mouth, you know?

Posted by: JM at March 31, 2006 4:39 PM


So you disagree with Gleut that she was rather well treated, and with her own statements after she was released.

I won't question you for questioning her.

If you're saying we should do Kim Jong-il too then you're really singing from our hymnal.

Posted by: oj at March 31, 2006 4:44 PM

What I'm saying is this...

you weren't there. i was not there either...what more do you have to go on but to assume that what she says is truthful? do you have some evidence that she made up stories as a journalist?

do you just by standard practice disbelieve anything said by journalists? or just the ones who do not report exactly what you want to hear? if bill o'reilly were captured (cross my fingers) and he came out alive (i guess i'd have to hope for that as well) and said he was treated well...i bet your head would explode.

and as far as whether or not that contradicts feeling threatened into making a video...well thats splitting hairs. you see i'm a critical thinker by profession and i'm proned to assuming that the issue is a bit more complex than your attempting to describe it.

Posted by: JM at March 31, 2006 4:54 PM

Yes, if Bill O'Reilly were released unharmed and praised his captors I'd assume he'd connived at his own situation until he gave a convincing explanation otherwise. Remember when that nutty talk show host said he'd been attacked by Nazis? Was it Morton Downey? He seemed no more believable than Tawana Brawley. Alan Berg was believable.

Posted by: oj at March 31, 2006 5:01 PM


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference DID SHE HAVE A DENTIST'S APPOINTMENT SHE NEEDED TO GET TO?::

» Kidnapped American Reporter Jill Carroll Freed from Political News and Blog Aggregator
American reporter Jill Carroll, who was kidnapped three months ago in a bloody ambush that killed he [Read More]

» Stop Bashing Jill Carroll from A Newer World
Judd at Think Progress is absolutely right. John Podhoretz owes Jill Carroll an apology. So does Orrin Judd (no relation).  Compassionate conservatism at it’s ugliest.     Technorati Tags: ... [Read More]

» Suspicion from All Things Beautiful
What has become somewhat of a controversy since last night, is the video I have provided for you below (courtesy of Bareknucklepolitics, via LGF), and filmed by her Mujahideen captors shortly prior to her release, which shows her obviously keen to prai... [Read More]

» Jill Carroll's Release Had A Propaganda Price from The Moderate Voice
Christian Science Monitor correspondent Jill Carroll's release did have a price — a fee paid in the form of a propaganda statement she was ordered to videotape, her paper... [Read More]

» Jill Carroll's Release Had A Propaganda Price from The Moderate Voice
Christian Science Monitor correspondent Jill Carroll's release did have a price — a fee paid in the form of a propaganda statement she was ordered to videotape, her paper... [Read More]