Produce a quote where an official has "ruled out" terrorism in this collapse.
Not that the words "there are no indications of" have a different meaning than "ruled out."
Not that the words "there are no indications of" have a different meaning than "ruled out."
Spare us the Clintonic parsing.
They made a statement -- artfully crafted, I will concede -- aimed at conveying a particular sentiment.
I chose to address the message they worked to convey, you opted to fall back on "the exact wording" (if I might be so brazen as to invoke The Words of Clinton, when caught up by his own petard).
That they left themselves an "out", should circumstances leave them no opportunity to "stay on message" -- an "out" allowing them to Clintonize with something along the lines of, "I think that if you'll go back and check my precise wordking, you'll find that..." -- I don't find that particularly admirable, nor do I think it in any real way negates the message they worked to convey with their present phrasing.
The "art" of saying one thing while making it sound like something else is being said, has become increasingly acceptable since the Clinton era. That is, at least in some quarters.