The later Medina quote:
“I was asked a question on the Glenn Beck show today regarding my thoughts on the so-called 9/11 Truth movement. I have never been involved with the 9/11 truth movement, and there is no doubt in my mind that Muslim terrorists flew planes into those buildings on 9/11. I have not seen any evidence nor have I ever believed that our government was involved or directed those individuals in any way. No one can deny that the events on 9/11 were a tragedy for all Americans and especially those families who lost loved ones.”
She went on to say: “The question surprised me because it’s not relevant to this race or the issues facing Texans. This campaign has always been about private property rights and state sovereignty. It is focused on the issues facing Texans. It is not a vehicle for the 9/11 truth movement or any other group.”
That sure sounds like she, and her campaign, are indeed arguing that she said “I don’t.”
Are you saying that she is trying to implicate the government? THAT is wrong. YOU are wrong.
It sounds like her and her campaign are backpedaling because she knows she didn’t say “I don’t”. If “I don’t” was the answer, the rest of the paragraph was unnecessary, and wouldn’t have required a press release to spin it.
At the end of the peragraph which you “interpret” began with “I don’t”, she said ...
Medina — [...] “So, I’ve not taken a position on that.”
Beck — “I think the people of America might think that might be a yes.”
Medina — “Well [...] I’m not going to take a position.”
If she in fact answered the question “I don’t”, why would she later say TWICE that she is “not going to take a position”?
You’re spinning/ lying, and you know it.
SnakeDoc
>> Are you saying that she is trying to implicate the government?
I’m saying “I’m not going to take a position” (not “I don’t”) was her answer to whether the US government was involved in 9/11 ... and that her position is the anti-American equivalent of withholding judgment on whether the Holocaust occurred.
SnakeDoc