Of course she’s wrong about the NYPD policemen who “got out” when the firemen didn’t. Watch the press conference video in that last link. *She* gave too much information.
As she gave too much information during the original interview when she went off on the mind control/psychological testing tangent. Beck kept trying to stop her with his, “You’ve answered the question, Debra.” She just kept on trying to prove she was right and he was wrong - but used a bizarre reasoning about *why* he was wrong.
The “mind control” comment was telling. And the next day at the press conference, she told the interviewers that other people were trying to make *her* look crazy. She thinks in those terms: that people try to control the thoughts of others. She believes that people think its “crazy” to have doubts about 9-11, that the information that has been given to the public is “mind control.”
Her reaction and comments both times don’t indicate defensive political naivete. I see bull-headed irritation, especially with the accusation that Beck expected “mind control” and “psychological testing.” She was defensive only in the attempt to prove that she was right and *in* the right. What she proved was that she did, indeed, have “a position on that,” and was lying when she said she didn’t.
And, no, I don’t think she was being attacked by political enemies when Beck asked her about the 9-11 truthers. I heard the whole Beck show from her interview, on. He was surprised by her answer/non-answer. He said he expected an easy dismissal.
I do know she was interviewed several times by Alex Jones, and that he had endorsed her a couple of days earlier. http://economycollapse.blogspot.com/
The real problem Media has is that she has no money nor any special favor from the press or her own party. Others can create her image and the folk with all their “feelings” in reality know nothing about her, like they know nothing about Perot, Obama, Palin, or Kerry. They just have a feeling, an emotional response they have been conditioned to feel, not unlike Pavlov's dog.
You can take snippets and bloopers of nearly anyone and make them out as stupid, nuts.......whatever:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRHkYN3hXkw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSdFIDygFwM&feature=related
Your entire argument hinges on an “interpretation” of a single facet, a few second exchange in words that are quick rhetorical superficial shots back and fourth............ I have yet to see anyone here make any statement reference anything substantive based on the issues and the candidates positions on them.
What's her position on abortion, a federal marriage law, boarder security, state road tax, health care reform................?