Jill Carroll has strongly disavowed the statements she made shortly after her release by terrorist captors. She now says what was obvious (except to the American left) — her captors did not treat her well. In fact, it turns out that she was confined to a small, soundproof room with frosted, opaque windows, and was “threatened many times.” Carroll also explains that her statements while in captivity that expressed sympathetic to the insurgency and criticism of the U.S. were made under duress. Specifically, the terrorists were aiming guns at her head.
As I said yesterday, Jill Carroll has an obvious excuse. What is the excuse of those on the American left who utter similar nonsense and who defended the substance of Carroll’s original coerced drivel?
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.