No, if you watched or read the entire speech, it was quite obvious he said what he meant.
Actually, I did watch the entire speech, and it was quite obvious what he said, and is not what you seem to imply he said.
What exactly other than "business X owner" NOT having built the infrastructure he relies upon for his business to work was he supposed to have meant, in that exact context (which has the advantage of being TRUE in almost every case)?
That the business itself was not built up mainly by the guy ?
That's so obviously not what he could possibly have meant (and also, it's FALSE, and does not need much thinking to realize that it's incorrect), I am baffled by how long republicans can keep harping on the same old soundbite.
That's nothing more than a strawman, hanging on a wildly unlikely misinterpretation of a phrase.
At worst, you could maybe argue honestly (if in a much more roundabout way) that he could possibly may have meant something along the lines of "you (and/or your employees) couldn't have built that (your business) as easily as you did on your own, without any help from others (from outside your company)", which is also arguably TRUE, but at least it's not a strawman, and it's somewhat open to debate.