Sorry, I can't agree with you there.
The fact that she is not a professional politicians is the more reason why her answer should have been very clear. No double talk. It's very simple really: There is simply NO WAY Bush planned and organised for 3,000 Americans to be slaughtered at the WTC on 9/11. There is no “ifs” or “buts” or any “clarification” about it.
Way I see it, if you actually believe that there is some possibility that Bush planned and organized to murder 3,000 Americans siting in their offices in Manhattan, then you are a complete nut job, and should be sent to the funny house.
And I am speaking as someone that lives in New York, and had my office right next to the WTC when it happened, and had quite a few friends that got murdered on 9/11.
Medina is finished I am afraid, and I actually preferred her to Perry before.
In her news conference Friday, it is clear Medina was trying to clean up the mess. But in our interview with her hours after the Beck radio show, she repeated there are still questions that need to be answered.
On Friday, she told reporters she is curious why no New York City police officers died in the towers when so many firefighters did.
!!!!!
That's not true, however, as 60 police officers were killed.
As I said, I think that the likeliest explanation is not that she’s a Truther but is so beholden to Truthers and other Paulite kooks and the money they send to her campaign that she didn’t dare contradict their “9-11 was an inside job” delusions on the Glenn Beck radio show.
I know that a lot of Tea Partiers supported Paul’s presidential candidacy (and perhaps most early Tea Partiers were Paul supporters, but that certainly is not the case for the overwhelming majority of current Tea Partiers), and I also know that many good, patriotic conservatives supported Paul in 2008 (full disclosure: I was not one of them, driven away by Paul’s isolationism, more extreme libertarianism and kookier views, and I supported Fred Thompson). That being said, some people support Ron Paul not because if his support for tax cuts and for limited government, but for his positions well outside of the conservative mainstream (including catering to Truthers), and I refer to such non-conservative Paul fanatics as Paulites. I think that conservatives have to be very careful before endorsing a Paulite, because when you least expect it he or she will come out against stopping Islamist fanatics from developing nuclear weapons or something and then you’ll end up with a Democrat governor and you won’t get the tax cuts that attracted you to the Paulite in the first place,
Just one man’s opinion.