John Podhoretz and Jonah Goldberg have been playing tag-team greased-pig-wrestling over at
The Corner of Filth and Lying'. I wrote about
Jonah Goldberg: Coward and Liar yesterday. Now a look at JPlod.
From the most recent posting regarding reporter Jill Carroll's release going backward into the abyss:
Icredi-Unbelievably-Dishonest-A-Go-Go.
JUDD LEGUM... [JPod]
...of ThinkProgress is, basically, unbelievably dishonest.
Deconstructing the pig below the fold.
JPLOD CON'T:
He writes the following: "Podhoretz... suggested that [Jill] Carroll was suffering from a mental disorder." I never suggested any such thing. I said, correctly, that people would might think she was suffering from Stockholm Syndrome -- which is not a mental disorder in any case, but a form of post-traumatic stress...
His attempt to wriggle away from the truth of the spirit of the accusation is obvious. But the funniest part: He's right. Stockholm Syndrome is classified as a form of Post Traumatic Stress...Disorder. That's the medical name of the DISORDER. Hence the "PTSD". It's a mental disorder.
What a dope.
JPlod plods on: He also says I said he should apologize for what he wrote, which is also incredibly dishonest.
Which brings us to JPlod's prior post:
I DEMAND HE APOLOGIZE... [JPod]
...to Jill Carroll. I'm speaking of Judd Legum at Think Progress, who wrote these words on Thursday before demanding I apologize for observing that Stockholm Syndrome questions were going to be raised about Carroll's words after her release: "It is totally inappropriate to assume that her description of how she was treated is motivated by anything other than a desire to tell the truth." Oh. Really? Here's what Carroll said yesterday: "Fearing retribution from my captors, I did not speak freely. Out of fear I said I wasn't threatened. In fact, I was threatened many times." I actually don't care whether Legum apologizes or not. The whole "he should apologize" trope is tired and silly, and it would be an aid to civil discourse if it were retired.
First: He's right. JPlod's not really calling for Judd's apology. Score one for .0000001 on the meaningfulness scale for the Plod. You really got him there.
It's funny how the Plod started that post on the "tired and silly trope" of calling for apologies, and finished the post on the "tired and silly trope." Between it was the point he tried to bury:
I'm speaking of Judd Legum at Think Progress, who wrote these words on Thursday before demanding I apologize for observing that Stockholm Syndrome questions were going to be raised about Carroll's words after her release...
You can see it, yeah? For observing that "questions were going to be raised..." By whom, JPlod? Oh wait! They were already raised...by JPlod!
What an obvious coward and a dope. (More on that below.)
For the record, here's what Judd at Think Progress wrote:
This is a day that we should celebrate Jill Carroll's courage. She put herself in danger to try to give the world a more accurate picture of Iraq. It is totally inappropriate to assume that her description of how she was treated is motivated by anything other than a desire to tell the truth.
Podhoretz owes Jill Carroll an apology.
Kind a gives it a different overall feel, doesn't it? And Judd was right about the appropriateness of JPod's assumptions. Judd's assumption was wrong, but that wrong was not born in character assassination and cowardice. It was to give the benefit of the doubt to a courageous human in a fragile situation. JPlod's wrongs come in much stinkier packaging.
In My heart, I know I'm Super Predictor Man
JILL CARROLL, CONTINUED [JPod]
On Thursday morning, I put up these words on this blog: "It's wonderful that she's free, but after watching someone who was a hostage for three months say on television she was well-treated because she wasn't beaten or killed -- while being dressed in the garb of a modest Muslim woman rather than the non-Muslim woman she actually is -- I expect there will be some Stockholm Syndrome talk in the coming days." For writing these predictive words, which were entirely accurate, I've been pilloried all over the blogosphere. Weird, especially in light of Jill Carroll's statement today, which was an effort to address and quiet precisely the kind of talk I predicted would take place.
Where do you start with a greased pig? Well, you just jump in and grab part of a pig. Here goes:
It's wonderful that she's free, but after watching someone who was a hostage for three months say on television...
...I expect there will be some Stockholm Syndrome talk in the coming days.
Or:
...after watching...I...Stockholm Syndrome...
He watched her, he thought of Stockholm Syndrome, and he started the talk about Stockholm Syndrome in his post at The Corner. And, not incredibly, not unbelievably, he did it with a coward's escape hatch built in: "someone else will talk about what I just talked about". Which means if she is experiencing Stockholm Syndrome, JPod can brag. If not, JPod can say "all I said was that others would talk about it".
What a dope and a coward.
JPlodding on: For writing these predictive words, which were entirely accurate, I've been pilloried all over the blogosphere. Weird, especially in light of Jill Carroll's statement today, which was an effort to address and quiet precisely the kind of talk I predicted would take place.
What a shameless shit.
You hold yourself up as the warrior of a noble cause when it is you that brought up the kind of talk that Ms. Carroll addressed. You brought up Stockholm Syndrome, a type of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It was you she was talking to.
What kind of coward attacks from a distance the character of a woman who was just released from three months of horror? A greased-pig lying coward.
Redeem yourself, JPod, if you can.
[UPDATE at 5:37 PM PDT]: I was just reading over at ThinkProgress some attempts at defending JPod's Fristing of Jill Carroll. To Judd:
What you fail to address is why the prospect of Carroll having Stockholm Syndrome is offensive, or why anyone who would suggest it (however subtley they choose) should be the target of a rebuke…I don’t get it.
My response:
You don’t read insult into that? “It’s wonderful that she’s free, but…”
What the hell is the “but”?
And why does JPod say this:
He [Judd] writes the following: “Podhoretz… suggested that [Jill] Carroll was suffering from a mental disorder.” I never suggested any such thing. I said, correctly, that people would might think she was suffering from Stockholm Syndrome — which is not a mental disorder in any case, but a form of post-traumatic stress…
Isn’t he implying that it would have been an insult if he said she was suffering from a mental disorder? And his denial is wrong. It is a form of PTSD, which is classified as a “mental disorder.”
Add to that this: How do you think Jill Carroll feels about JPod's words on the day she was released?