I imagine you may have heard this by now. But Rusty has a comprehensive report and will have updates through the day. The only statement I heard on the radio was Carroll talking about how her captors treated her well and never threatened her. My first gut reaction was that she either was being threatened on condition of painting a positive picture, or this wasn't entirely what it appeared to be in the first place.
On the other hand, it could simply be Stockholm Syndrome which would lead her to be so seemingly positive. Remember to check in with Rusty for more.
SWEET NEWS INDEED !!
Posted by: TYLER | Thursday, March 30, 2006 at 10:38 AM
yeah they were so nice to me.
Held me prisoner for months.
Terrorized me with death.
Forced me to dress as they wished.
Forced me to beg for my life on worldwide TV.
I bet they allowed her to pray to Jesus too.
Posted by: splashtc | Thursday, March 30, 2006 at 12:21 PM
Splash, I'm sorry to have to correct you on a couple of your points.
#4 - Jill Carroll dressed in the birka/headscarf before the kidnapping. So they didn't force her to put on the garb of women's oppression, she did it willingly.
#6 - I'm pretty sure she's not a Christian, I don't think she'd be too interested in praying to Jesus.
I'm glad she's been released, but I've smelled a rat with her case since the beginning.
--Jason
Posted by: Jason Coleman | Thursday, March 30, 2006 at 12:57 PM
Isn't she a reporter for the Christian Science Monitor? Do you think they would hire someone that isn't a Christian to report for them? Just curious. Please excuse me if I am wrong.
Posted by: Linda | Thursday, March 30, 2006 at 12:59 PM
It's a good day. Carroll is released and that's just wonderful news.
And then, as an extra-special little bonus for schadenfreude junkies like me, I get to tour the right-wing blogosphere and learn a bit about who's who.
Our host here does about as well as anyone, and anchors the opposite end of the spectrum from the Redstate/LGF ghouls who were already pitching tiny little tents in anticipation of the snuff video.
I note with some grim amusement the dark yet vague, suggestion that this "wasn't entirely what it appeared to be," but one hesitates to attack on that front because that statement could, in a pinch, mean whatever you need it to.
Posted by: Laertes | Thursday, March 30, 2006 at 01:54 PM
If this woman's captors were so kind to her, why was she on TV sobbing her eyes out begging for the Iraqi women terrorists to be released?
What is going on?
I doubt that all is as it seems!!
Posted by: annie | Thursday, March 30, 2006 at 02:15 PM
Didn't they kill the two folks that were travelling with her?
Posted by: tester | Thursday, March 30, 2006 at 03:09 PM
tester: Her driver escaped. They killed the translator.
Posted by: Laertes | Thursday, March 30, 2006 at 03:15 PM
Well, they sure weren't kind to the translator. Just a bunch of murdering thugs, and she should call them such.
Posted by: annie | Thursday, March 30, 2006 at 03:26 PM
I thought somebody got killed.
Frankly, I thought she was a dipshit for being over there. But, I was hoping they would not wack her head off.
Posted by: tester | Thursday, March 30, 2006 at 04:11 PM
Jason:
I agree, something is not right here. I also thought that a long time ago whent his first hit the airways. I don't know what the reasons are behind all of it, but something smells a lot! Moey
Posted by: moey | Thursday, March 30, 2006 at 04:20 PM
i'm glad she's back also. i wasn't always comfortable with her objectives before this happened. get ready for writings from the left. hope i'm wrong. regardless, i'm glad her family has her back.
Posted by: kate | Thursday, March 30, 2006 at 05:19 PM
I have just been watching what she was saying about the war against the insurgents (terrorists). She is totally pro them, anti US troops. She had nothing to say about the guy who was killed, just good things about her 'captors'.
She disgusts me!!
Posted by: annie | Thursday, March 30, 2006 at 06:21 PM
I watched her brief interview. I don't get what people are freaking out about. I mean, I understand that you'd find it consonant with your world-view if she'd been tortured and raped by the filthy brown savages. I was surprised to hear her say she hadn't been beaten or threatened and had been treated well. But:
1. Maybe she was, but wants to wait until she's safely back in the States to tell a more complete story.
2. Maybe she wasn't, and then what? Should she say she was beaten and raped and threatened even if she wasn't, because you'd find it ideologically expedient if she was?
She "disgusts" you? That's a fascinating reaction. Says more about you than about her, of course.
Posted by: Laertes | Thursday, March 30, 2006 at 07:52 PM
What is says about me is that I would not want my son to have to go risk his life for somebody like her who sounds like she would rather be with her 'kind friends'. A bit like the others that everybody was so concerned about who were rescued last week, yet it was like they were finding it so difficult to say 'thankyou' to the people who had rescued them.
Get real, these people are dangerous to other people, and this woman is just a Cindy Sheehan in another form. While ever they go on about how the troops should pull out, it gives the enemy cause to believe that if they go on using terrorist tactics the US will soon give up. Yes, she does disgust me, she disgusts me in that there appears to be only one person she cares about. HERSELF, and quite honestly, if people like her wish to support the terrorists, then get captured by them, they should not expect others, presumably the big bad US troops, or the Brits, to have to go rescue them!
Posted by: annie | Thursday, March 30, 2006 at 08:28 PM
Well, now we agree. I also wouldn't want your son to have to go to Iraq to risk his life for her.
Kum bay yah.
As for calling her a Cindy Sheehan, I'm shocked at how quickly you've gone from unjustifiably condemning her to unjustifiably praising her. She strikes me as a brave young woman, but that's going maybe a bit too far. She has yet to achieve Sheehan's greatness. The potential is there, true, and it's big-hearted of you to recognize that. You have a generous spirit.
Posted by: Laertes | Thursday, March 30, 2006 at 09:09 PM
Laertes
By making that statement, you have just said all there needs to be said about yourself.
Thank God we don't have to rely on you for protection, 'cause I am sure you have got your white flag all unfurled and ready!!
Posted by: annie | Friday, March 31, 2006 at 01:13 PM
I wrote: "I was surprised to hear her say she hadn't been beaten or threatened and had been treated well...maybe she was, but wants to wait until she's safely back in the States to tell a more complete story."
Yep: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060402/ap_on_re_eu/carroll
Posted by: Laertes | Saturday, April 01, 2006 at 10:58 PM
Jill Carroll is a woman who had, prior to her abduction praised the insurgency in Iraq. Her translator was killed yet she pops out 82 days later cheerful, well fed and healthy STILL praising the insurgents and bad mouthing the United States. Kinda funny how she is a self proclaimed non biased journalist yet no articles of hers can be found on the web.......only her denouncements of the US while she holed up with her friends for the last 82 days. She should be put on trial for treason, found guilty and shot.
Posted by: Jerry Cloutier | Sunday, April 02, 2006 at 10:11 AM
And she managed to help get the release of the Iraqi women prisoners that the terrorists wanted released.
Talk about double standards, I bet their demands would never have been given into if this had been a man who had been taken hostage, or even a plain looking woman!!
Utterly disgusting!!!
Posted by: annie | Sunday, April 02, 2006 at 12:05 PM
and after it came out that she was forced through threats while in captivity to make positive statement about her captors, did any of you who condemned her without knowing the whole story find it difficult to swallow your words? apparently not - quick to judge, slow to apologize
Posted by: raindrops | Sunday, April 09, 2006 at 02:22 PM