Posted on 02/12/2010 6:27:28 AM PST by IbJensen
A Republican gubernatorial candidate said Thursday she has questions about whether the U.S. government was involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks — a statement she swiftly backed away from and one that drew immediate criticism from her better-known rivals in the race.
Gov. Rick Perry and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison dismissed the comments made by Debra Medina on the Glenn Beck Show that there were "some very good arguments" that the U.S. was involved in bringing down the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.
"I don't have all of the evidence there, Glenn," Medina said. "I think some very good questions have been raised. In that regard there's some very good arguments and I think the American people have not seen all the evidence there."
Medina later released a statement saying she did not believe the government was involved in the attacks.
"There is no doubt in my mind that Muslim terrorists flew planes into those buildings on 9/11," Medina said in the written statement. "I have not seen any evidence nor have I ever believed that our government was involved or directed those individuals in any way."
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
First of all, stay in Illinois and fix all the problems your lovely state has that are being “shared” with the rest of the country. Secondly, what you say may be correct, maybe not, but that has no bearing on the 9-11 horror and the Muslim Jihadis that would like to kill us. And it certainly has no bearing on the veracity of Medina as would be governor. You have free speech but so do I. As I said, you have plenty to fix in Illinois without messing with Texas. You don’t have a rat’s ass idea of Texas politics.
OK, I see her under the calender of meet ups. Thing is, I don’t think that she is attached to this group, it looks like they were meeting up at this event because they like her.
This Medina thing is crazy. I was liking her but thought her an (I) at first, I couldn’t support that and risk splitting the vote. Then I was corrected and told she was running as an (R) and I decided I could safely vote for her.
Then this Beck thing happened and turned me off of her and now I’m wondering about THAT. I heard Becks giggling and comments after Medina’s interview (Mike Church played it). Pretty disappointed in Beck, now.
I also heard Medina on Church, she said she screwed up that interview, wasn’t going to play a blame game yada. Eye back on the ball.
I also heard Perry and KBH were on her fumble with robo calls like wihte on rice within an hour of her interview. I see this website thing and now I wonder...maybe Medina IS getting a raw deal.
What’s that got to do with the question of whether or not Ms. Medina knows what a “truther” is?
Because many "truthers" hopped aboard the Ron Paul bandwagon back in '08, Eaker is trying to smear Medina with a transparent "guilt by association" leap of logic.
The fallacy in Eaker's "logic" is that "9-11 truther conspiracy theorists" are primarily LEFT-WING Libertarian Whacknuts,
And although they unwelcomely jumped aboard the Ron Paul bandwagon because of his Libertarian views, he is a Right-Wing Libertarian and NOT a 9-11 truther.
Therefor, Eaker's "guilt by association" smear of Medina is a sham.
So, if her first two words were “I don’t” Then what’s the problem? And if her next statement was that she had no evidence one way or the other, It’s obvius to me she was trying to stay OUT of a trap.That question was only asked to entrap, anyway. If she would have simply said no, Beck could have asked her “Why do you believe that? Or he could have asked, “Do you believe Americans were really the first to set foot on the moon?” I think she saw it as a trick question, too, and just tried to steer around it. If I were being deposed by lawyers and asked that same question....
>> [...] according to you, being “conservative” now is redefined to mean, “Yes, I blindly believe and accept as holy and righteous all that is done by my government.”
Pretty sure that’s not what I said, chief. I said nothing referring to “all [...] that is done by my government”. I spoke specifically about 9-11 trutherism — no conservative patriot can be a truther, its as simple as that. Her answer revealed a troubling truth about the premise from which she is operating, and it is a “progressive”, not a conservative, premise.
>> Who’d have thought that today I’d wake up to learn that being pro-life, pro-liberty, pro-second amendment, pro-small/focused/constitutional government, pro-free market, pro-strong defense, pro-immigration law enforcement, pro-family, pro-traditional marriage, pro-parental rights, etc. etc. and whatever else has heretofore been mistakenly associated with being conservative.
Those remain tenets of conservatism. One can, apparently, believe those things and still spread enemy propaganda.
“Trutherism” is aid and comfort to terrorists — it is an international fringe movement composed of radical leftists, conspiracy theorists, and terrorist sympathizers with the sole aim of blaming 9/11 on America and Americans. To me, it is functional the equivalent of Holocaust denial. If she entertains the possibility that anti-American enemy propaganda may be “truth”, she’s on the wrong side.
>> who’d have thought I’d find out that none of that has anything to do with being conservative, that really, thanks to you, we now know it all revolves on a single point - do I trust my government implicitly and without question.
That’s also not what I said. “Questioning your government” is great, but all “questions” are not created equal. Some questions are stupid. “Truther” questions are deserving of ridicule.
Entertaining the lies about this country spread by muslim fanatics and wacko leftists is not a hallmark of conservative thought, and not a trait I value in a leader. Like I said — “trutherism” is the intellectual equivalent of Holocaust denial ... she is participating or giving weight to the propaganda of anti-Americans.
She’s done.
SnakeDoc
Oh I’m not trying to “fix” Texas. And yes, I am very actively trying to help with Illinois’ course correction. And if you read me carefully, I’m not trying to justify Medina, either. What I’m having a hard time with is the knee-jerk reflex I am seeing here, that our government could never do harm to its own citizens, therefore any act of honestly questioning that gets instantly marginalized. I hope you understand that position strengthens the hand of Big, All-Wise Government, and weakens the ability of we the people to question its authority when it goes astray. I always thought that was one of the good things about Texas. You had a mind of your own and wouldn’t take anybody’s guff, no matter how fancy they dressed it up. Maybe I was wrong?
Like Medina?
My opinion is that Ron Paul and Medina are a set of Truthers.
Your opinion as per usual is different. It is also my opinion that you pretty much are wrong about everything.
Yes, she should have put it to bed with Beck, but instead decided (like Ron Paul) that she needed the cash and support of those who believe that GWB had motive to kill 3000 Americans.
I am wondering if the #s of those people are worth the political cost?
RP thought it was worth it, BDS is lucrative to some.
>> As I’ve said before, that’s merely a desperately contrived smear intended to squelch grassroot influence on GOP Party politics.
So, GOP puppetmasters made her smear herself on Beck’s radioshow to squelch grassroots influence? That’s impressive.
This isn’t a contrived rumor or backroom release by people trying to torpedo a grassroots candidate — it was HER answer to a simple question. She squelched her own influence. She smeared herself.
>> Only the big $$$ lobbyists have a voice in Perry’s Texas, not the little people like Medina.
Medina can no longer represent the “little people” in Texas. The “little people” in Texas believe 9-11 was an attack ... she believes it may have been an inside job. She disqualified herself.
>> Even Hutchinson admits to that!!!
Hutchinson is Perry’s opponent, and she’s losing — it isn’t difficult to get a losing candidate to admit to any Perry smear you could think up.
As for the remainder — I was an undecided voter until yesterday. Medina lost my vote, Perry didn’t win it.
SnakeDoc
If you want a grassroots conservative....populist not... you better support a good candidate. Medina has disqualified herself. You can support her but if you do so by DENYING who she is, you are unwise. We need good candidates, not just offbeat candidates.
Who says I support Medina???
LOL! The truth is, I don't care much for any of the three contenders for one reason or another...
I merely jumped into this fray because I didn't like the way Glen Beck sandbagged Medina, regardless of whatever her political positions are...
Just calling a "spade a spade"
I don’t disagree with you on that, and I’m a lifelong Texan.Even though I am supporting Perry for re-election at this point, I think what she said has been way overblown.You will find plenty of folks right here on FR that are going to find fault with everyone. There are those here that wouldn’t vote for Jesus for governor, because he was just a carpenter, and had no political experience.
I hope the Commission tells us why members of the bin Laden family were permitted, immediately after 9/11, to leave the United States without interrogation, when no other commercial or private flights were allowed. That event should have been thoroughly studied and explained to the American people. We actually had a lot more reason to invade Saudi Arabia than we did Iraq in connection with 9/11, but that country, obviously no friend of democracy, remains an unchallenged ally of the United States with few questions asked.
More:
Well, I never automatically trust anything the government does when they do an investigation because too often I think there’s an area that the government covered up, whether it’s the Kennedy assassination or whatever.
There could be a better investigation because there’s a split in government. So I would certainly consider that and think it could be worthwhile. If you do the same thing over and over again, you’re just spinning your wheels. But I would certainly work with Dennis [Kucinich]. So I’ll talk to Dennis and he’s in a position now in the party majority, so he might have a better chance with it. And we’d have a better chance of getting a new investigation. Too often investigations on almost any issue is usually a cover-up.
He has questions about 9/11...hmmmmm....I guess that makes him a "truther" too and since you worked on his campaign, you are one by association. Isn't that the same standard you are applying to Medina and her supporters?
Disclaimer: I am not a "truther" but I do believe there are legitimate questions remaining about 9/11. No LIHOP or MIHOP, just why the intelligence was ignored and why so many lies were told in the aftermath to cover for those who failed to protect us.
I'd expect there would be a lot more opposing Him for a publicly elected position based on His redistribitution-of-wealth and demonizing-the-rich rhetoric.
So, GOP puppetmasters made her smear herself
(((yawn)))
I suppose we're all supposed to be impressed by your clever rhetorical finesse...
as if we've never seen a politi-bot just squat down and spin, spin, spin...
Well, I’m still baffled. I was raised with my dad telling me how it was with Pearl Harbor. I am a conservative in every respect, including loyalty to my country. I have NO leftist ties, but because I am open to at least the premise that our government might do something very bad, because I have a mind that wants to check the facts in a fair setting, that sets me over there with the bad guys? If that floats your boat, nothing I can do about it.
But it does remind me of a certain church I no longer attend. You just couldn’t question certain things. Not even using the Bible. At that point it really came home to me. Who is my authority? Is it the truth, or is it some guy in a pulpit?
Look, I respect if you’ve never had a genuine crisis of confidence in your own government. But if you ever do, remember this. It’s the truth that sets you free, not any political party.
And truth is never a friend to our enemies. C.S. Lewis said something to this effect, that the most effective lies are those which use the truth to convey a falsehood. Leftists want us to question our government right into a state of paralysis, providing them an opening to replace it, after which no further questioning will be permitted. I get that. The US has done great good in the world, and that despite the despicable persons we sometimes put in office. It gives me true confidence in the sovereignty of God.
What I would like my fellow FReepers to get is that we cannot use the very real danger of harming our government through extreme distrust as an excuse to remain willfully blind to potentially severe abuses of that government’s authority. It’s a tightrope walk; it isn’t easy, but it is essential to the preservation of our freedoms.
So then, would you say that me believing my dad’s Pearl Harbor stories from his naval cryptography days, is a disqualification for public office? If so, please elaborate. Because thus far, you have not made your case.
Who’s spinning? These are facts ... she was asked a simple question, gave the wrong answer, and revealed that she is a freaking lunatic. No “rhetorical finesse” necessary.
SnakeDoc
I think the problem is everyone looks at it very black and white. I believe what happened on September 11th was probably something like an episode of 24. Meaning, yes, there were clandestine operators in high up places who helped facilitate the attack. I think we know about 20 percent of what is really happening on any given day.
I have no idea about Medina, but you're statement is correct...The Republican political groupies are alive and well...Those with their jaws on their knees are their targets.
Bull-pucky. Show me chapter and verse where Jesus advocates compulsory, government-ordered redistribution of wealth, or where he “demonizes” the rich. Remember, Jesus cast out demons in real time. “Demonizing” might mean something different to him than it does to you.
Hey pal, I would have no difficulty in believeing that the Klinton admin had something to do with a terror op, since they clearly were involved in the Murrah building explosion, and the murders of Vince foster, and Ron Brown, among others. But the "truthers" aren't even saying that; they wish to hang it on George Bush, who hadn't been in office long enough to even get his cabinet and advisors in place, or retract the Gorelic memo that had enabled the terorists to operate freely here since 1993.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.