Cindy's own words

[RandFan]

#3 is probably incorrect. The Republicans were spending tens of millions of dollars to get something---anything on Clinton, with the full support of the media. If he hadn't handed the bj to them on a silver platter, they would have found something else. No one can stand up to that kind of scrutiny.

I'm not convinced of that. It's just speculation. Anything is possible of course.

 

[RandFan]

Once again we see someone on the Right who hurls insult after insult, and then gets all weepy when someone lobs a small one back. Waaah. Waaah. Just like Rusk Limbaugh.

I'm pretty sure it was Cindy who started with the insults. I thought it rather odd that she was demanding a meeting with him while displaying utter contempt and hurling some pretty mean things around. And Bush has no option but to sit there and take it. He can't lash out and he knows it. He must treat her with respect while she says some pretty nasty things about him and then whines when people who respect the president get pissed off and lobs some nasty things back.

Cindy: Hey Mr. President, you are a murderer, liar and a stooge for the Jews and I would like a few minutes with you to tell you that to your face.

Media: Can you believe he won't meet with her?

Reason: Can you blame him?

Now Cindy is in a rather odd position because she can't attack these mothers for the same reason Bush can't attack her. But hey, why should that stop her. Her ego is simply too great so she lashes out anyway through thinly veiled contempt at decent humans who have lost loved ones and calls them "continue the murder and mayhem" moms. Any respect or empathy I had for Cindy is gone.

 

[MarksSock]

World according to Mark:

1. Quoting a person with a cite is considered a right-wing conspiracy.
2. Rule 7 doesn't apply to right-thinking people.

Mark, I'm putting your sock puppet on ignore and reporting your flagrant abuse of rule 7. Please stragihten out the situation pronto. That is all.

Once again you respond with a lie. I never said anything about a right Wing conspiracy. Ever.

Those of us in the left have been called:

Cowards
Commies
Terorist Supporters
Enviro Wackos
Traitors
Stupid
Communist Sympathisers
Dupes
You name it...

But let one of us use the term "brainwashed" (which I disagree with) and all of a sudden you are all worried about manners. Waaah. Waaah. Grow up.


RandFan:

It is just specualtion, but they really were determined to get something on him. Clinton's greatest foolishness was in handing them something to bash his brains in with when he knew they would use absolutely anything against him. It was---no other word for it---stupid.

 

[Ziggurat]

But let one of us use the term "brainwashed" (which I disagree with) and all of a sudden you are all worried about manners.

Sorry for sounding like a broken record, but I can't get to her "brainwashed" comment yet, I'm still hung up on her use of the term "freedom fighter" for terrorist. And all I've gotten from any anti-war people is a) she shouldn't have been so impolitic or, for the few who really went out on a limb, b) I don't agree with her.

Absolutely missing, STILL, is anyone from the antiwar side willing to step forward and unambiguously say that not only was she wrong to say such a thing, but that such a statement means she is saying that the terrorists are the good guys, and that this sentiment is reprehensible. I'm still waiting.

Can I get a little moral clarity here? Is that really asking too much?

 

[MarksSock]

Sorry for sounding like a broken record, but I can't get to her "brainwashed" comment yet, I'm still hung up on her use of the term "freedom fighter" for terrorist. And all I've gotten from any anti-war people is a) she shouldn't have been so impolitic or, for the few who really went out on a limb, b) I don't agree with her.

Absolutely missing, STILL, is anyone from the antiwar side willing to step forward and unambiguously say that not only was she wrong to say such a thing, but that such a statement means she is saying that the terrorists are the good guys, and that this sentiment is reprehensible. I'm still waiting.

Can I get a little moral clarity here? Is that really asking too much?

OK...I didn't see the exact quote, but will take your word for it.

I do not personally consider the Iraqi insurrgents/terrorists to be freedom fighters. Neverthless, history is written by the victors (The English did NOT consider George Washington to be a freedom fighter and probably still don't). And, while I do NOT agree with it, can I imagine a future Arab history book where Iraqi terrorists are written up as freedom fighters? Well, yeah. I'll still disagree, but I can imagine it being said. So, what did she mean exactly? I don't know, and I'll bet you don't either.

But what does any of this have to do with anything? Is the entire Right Wing viewpoint to be dismissed because Pat Robertson is a raving lunatic, and very few people on the right have made unambiguous rejections of it?

I saw a bumper sticker just this morning that said "Let's nuke 'em and take their oil." Why is there no repudiation of this from the Right Wing?

Shall we dismiss the entire Right Wing viewpoint because Rumsfeld blatantly lied about the term "imminent threat," And no one on the right is repudiating it?

No one on the Right had in any way admitted that their economic policies have led to record deficits. Does that invalidate everything else?

Let's apply the same standards for both sides, shall we?

 

[Mycroft]

But what does any of this have to do with anything? Is the entire Right Wing viewpoint to be dismissed because Pat Robertson is a raving lunatic, and very few people on the right have made unambiguous rejections of it?

No, but neither should the entire left-wing viewpoint be dismissed because of Cindy Sheehan.

The problem, however, is that Cindy's lunacy is being embraced by the left. She's being promoted, not repudiated.

 

[MarksSock]

No, but neither should the entire left-wing viewpoint be dismissed because of Cindy Sheehan.

The problem, however, is that Cindy's lunacy is being embraced by the left. She's being promoted, not repudiated.

her viewpoint---except for the "freedom fighters' comment---is being embraced by the Left. Which is exactly my point.

 

[Mycroft]

her viewpoint---except for the "freedom fighters' comment---is being embraced by the Left. Which is exactly my point.

Which is exactly the problem.

 

[Ziggurat]

OK...I didn't see the exact quote, but will take your word for it.

I already gave the exact quote, but here it is again:
"But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in, and they [American troops] have created more terrorism by going to an Islamic country, devastating the country and killing innocent people in that country."

And don't try to derail this by talking about how she's right that we're creating more terrorists. That is a point of debate, but calling terrorists "freedom fighters" is unacceptable. Or at least it SHOULD be unacceptable, if you're actually on the side of civilization.

I do not personally consider the Iraqi insurrgents/terrorists to be freedom fighters. Neverthless, history is written by the victors (The English did NOT consider George Washington to be a freedom fighter and probably still don't). And, while I do NOT agree with it, can I imagine a future Arab history book where Iraqi terrorists are written up as freedom fighters? Well, yeah. I'll still disagree, but I can imagine it being said. So, what did she mean exactly? I don't know, and I'll bet you don't either.

What a copout. We're not talking about what future generations might call them, we're talking about what WE are calling them. The use of that term is a moral judgment. You are basically searching for an excuse for why she made a horrible moral judgment, and what you've provided here is that someone else might also make a horrible moral judgment. That's simply not good enough. I want your judgment, WITHOUT any recourse to hypotheticals which really just amount to cheap relativism. Cindy is NOT some future Arab historian living in the glorious new Caliphate, she's an American. It is therefore appropriate to judge her by OUR values, not the values of our enemies. Your reluctance to do so is disapointing.

But what does any of this have to do with anything? Is the entire Right Wing viewpoint to be dismissed because Pat Robertson is a raving lunatic, and very few people on the right have made unambiguous rejections of it?

Well, first off, I'd disagree with that assessment of the right's response to Robertson. Yes, every side has its loons, and no, the presence of such loons does not, in itself negate an entire side of a debate. I never claimed otherwise. But let's get a little more specific, because that will probably help clarify things.

You want a specific rejection of Robertson's ravings from me? Easy. Roberston is a quack, and idiot, and a demagogue. He is advocating murder, plain and simple, and his actions have hurt America's interests. There is no justification for him making such a statement. That a clear, unambiguous denunciation of him, with no excuses and no qualifications.

Now, who in the anti-war crowd on this message board is willing to be so clear and unambiguous about Cindy's support for terrorists? Certainly not you, at least not yet. When I ask for such clarity, all I get are qualifications and excuses.

 

[Mark]

I already gave the exact quote, but here it is again:
"But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in, and they [American troops] have created more terrorism by going to an Islamic country, devastating the country and killing innocent people in that country."

And don't try to derail this by talking about how she's right that we're creating more terrorists. That is a point of debate, but calling terrorists "freedom fighters" is unacceptable. Or at least it SHOULD be unacceptable, if you're actually on the side of civilization.



What a copout. We're not talking about what future generations might call them, we're talking about what WE are calling them. The use of that term is a moral judgment. You are basically searching for an excuse for why she made a horrible moral judgment, and what you've provided here is that someone else might also make a horrible moral judgment. That's simply not good enough. I want your judgment, WITHOUT any recourse to hypotheticals which really just amount to cheap relativism. Cindy is NOT some future Arab historian living in the glorious new Caliphate, she's an American. It is therefore appropriate to judge her by OUR values, not the values of our enemies. Your reluctance to do so is disapointing.



Well, first off, I'd disagree with that assessment of the right's response to Robertson. Yes, every side has its loons, and no, the presence of such loons does not, in itself negate an entire side of a debate. I never claimed otherwise. But let's get a little more specific, because that will probably help clarify things.

You want a specific rejection of Robertson's ravings from me? Easy. Roberston is a quack, and idiot, and a demagogue. He is advocating murder, plain and simple, and his actions have hurt America's interests. There is no justification for him making such a statement. That a clear, unambiguous denunciation of him, with no excuses and no qualifications.

Now, who in the anti-war crowd on this message board is willing to be so clear and unambiguous about Cindy's support for terrorists? Certainly not you, at least not yet. When I ask for such clarity, all I get are qualifications and excuses.

Merely pointing out that the term "freedom fighter" can be a variable. But I also pointed out that IMO it was not in this specific case. Who much more clear can I be?

In any case, the paragraph you quoted from Cindy is correct...except for her use of the term "freedom fighters" which is assinine. Unfortunately the Right (as you are doing) will use her ignorant use of that term to invalidate the whole point she is making...which is an equally assinine thing to do.

 

[Jocko]

Merely pointing out that the term "freedom fighter" can be a variable. But I also pointed out that IMO it was not in this specific case. Who much more clear can I be?

In any case, the paragraph you quoted from Cindy is correct...except for her use of the term "freedom fighters" which is assinine. Unfortunately the Right (as you are doing) will use her ignorant use of that term to invalidate the whole point she is making...which is an equally assinine thing to do.

Ah, found the old password. Good for you.

Now that you're legal again, how about addressing all the OTHER "asinine" slips of the tongue Cindy has managed to publish? I provided you with sources above.

How many "ignorant" words will you allow her before you stop apologising for her? This is a serious question, so please treat it as such.

 

[Ziggurat]

Merely pointing out that the term "freedom fighter" can be a variable.

It is not variable: it is ALWAYS used as a complimentary term. The fact that different people have different definitions of what constitutes good doesn't change that, and is therefore irrelevant. You were making excuses for her.

But I also pointed out that IMO it was not in this specific case. Who much more clear can I be?

You could acknowledge, plainly, without excuses, without qualifications, without any provisos, without debating definitions, that her labelling of terrorists as "freedom fighter" amounts to supporting their cause. You could be a LOT more clear than you've been, there's no mystery to it.

In any case, the paragraph you quoted from Cindy is correct...except for her use of the term "freedom fighters" which is assinine.

It is not merely assinine. It is immoral. And you are refusing to recognize that.

Unfortunately the Right (as you are doing) will use her ignorant use of that term to invalidate the whole point she is making...which is an equally assinine thing to do.

Her use of the term is not "ignorant" either. You are still making excuses for her. She knows well enough who those people are, she knows that they're terrorists. They killed her son, after all. And she even used the term in the sentence I quote, since in that context it makes Bush look bad, so it's hardly a case of her being unaware that that's who they really are. Calling her use of the term "ignorant" is an attempt to remove moral responsibility for her actions from her. That is STILL not acceptable. That is STILL making excuses.

Stop making excuses. Show a little damned moral clarity. Demonstrate for us that you really DON'T sympathize with terrorists by denouncing, without any excuses, expressions of exactly that sympathy. Can you do it? I grow more and more doubtful with each post, though I have not yet lost hope.

 

[Mark]

Ah, found the old password. Good for you.

Now that you're legal again, how about addressing all the OTHER "asinine" slips of the tongue Cindy has managed to publish? I provided you with sources above.

How many "ignorant" words will you allow her before you stop apologising for her? This is a serious question, so please treat it as such.

A) You said you put me on ignore. Do you ever tell the truth?

B) The password problem was corrected on the JREF side. Ask them if you don't believe me.

C) Ask me specific things about her quotes that you consider asinine and I will respond. I cannot read your mind and then look them up for you. Also, as I said, holding up her asinine term of term "freedom fighter," does not provide an excuse you blanket reject averything she has said. Doing so is equally asinine.

D) I have not apologized for her. As I said, except for "freedom fighters," I more or less agree with her position.

Bush (not the troops, since he gave the orders) has created anarchy and, as such, has created this new breeding ground for terrorists, and is indirectly responible for the death of tens of thousands Iraqi civilians, and nearly 2,000 of our own troops (whom I do admire and respect and want to get them the hell out of there before more of them are killed pointlessly).

Why have you not come out in support of the thousands of dead Iraqi civilians or 2,000 dead American soldiers? Do their lives not matter to you at all?

 

[clk]

We are off topic. I should have started a new thread. Would you use the "reply in new thread button"?

I replied to you in a new thread. I have a busy schedule for the next week, so I will try to reply to all of your posts in that thread, but there may be days where I am unable to.

 

[Mark]

It is not variable: it is ALWAYS used as a complimentary term. The fact that different people have different definitions of what constitutes good doesn't change that, and is therefore irrelevant. You were making excuses for her.



You could acknowledge, plainly, without excuses, without qualifications, without any provisos, without debating definitions, that her labelling of terrorists as "freedom fighter" amounts to supporting their cause. You could be a LOT more clear than you've been, there's no mystery to it.



It is not merely assinine. It is immoral. And you are refusing to recognize that.



Her use of the term is not "ignorant" either. You are still making excuses for her. She knows well enough who those people are, she knows that they're terrorists. They killed her son, after all. And she even used the term in the sentence I quote, since in that context it makes Bush look bad, so it's hardly a case of her being unaware that that's who they really are. Calling her use of the term "ignorant" is an attempt to remove moral responsibility for her actions from her. That is STILL not acceptable. That is STILL making excuses.

Stop making excuses. Show a little damned moral clarity. Demonstrate for us that you really DON'T sympathize with terrorists by denouncing, without any excuses, expressions of exactly that sympathy. Can you do it? I grow more and more doubtful with each post, though I have not yet lost hope.

I am trying to answer in civil tones, but you are becoming exasperating. What do I have to do? Let you write my words and then sign them? I have said repeatedly that she is wrong to use the term "freedom fighters" regarding the insurrgents/terrorists in Iraq. What else do you want??!?!

Trick question, of course. I know what you want; you want to reject EVERYTHING she says based on those two words. Sorry. Can't do that for you; it would be a contemptible lie. She makes a lot of good points, and you obviously know that or you wouldn't keep playing games over two words.

 

[Ziggurat]

I am trying to answer in civil tones, but you are becoming exasperating. What do I have to do? Let you write my words and then sign them? I have said repeatedly that she is wrong to use the term "freedom fighters" regarding the insurrgents/terrorists in Iraq. What else do you want??!?!

What I want is not simply acknowledgment that she was wrong, because that's not enough. Here, I'll give you some examples:
This statement is wrong: "Irish people have twelve fingers".
This statement is immoral: "Irish people deserve to be killed".

Cindy's statement that terrorists were freedom fighters is not simply wrong. THAT is what I want acknowledgement of. If you're really unable to figure it out, then yes, I can write a statement and have you sign off on it. But what I'm asking really isn't that much, and it really isn't hard.

Trick question, of course. I know what you want; you want to reject EVERYTHING she says based on those two words. Sorry. Can't do that for you; it would be a contemptible lie. She makes a lot of good points, andyYou obviously know that or you wouldn't keep playing games over two words.

No, actually, you've got this completely backwards. Arguments must stand on their own, regardless of the source. This means that her arguments have no particular authority because of her status as the mother of a dead soldier, but it ALSO means that any of her arguments which have merit are NOT discounted by the fact that she's a terrorist supporter. You don't need her to make your arguments, you never did.

 

[Dan Beaird]

The cheating in the wargames is another reason Americans are dieing that didn’t need to. The reason the US lost in the wargames was the General playing the Iraqi side used gorilla warefare and insurgents instead of conventional warfare. When Bush landed on the Carrier and said “Combat Operations were over” I guess he forgot to tell the Insurgents who are using gorilla operations. Since Americans are still dieing the war is not over yet, and what happened in the wargames is similar to what is happening now...

If you and I were playing a wargame for our own amusement and I cheated, then you would have ample cause to complain. The military does not wargame for entertainment (well at least they say they don't, frankly the stuff they have is too good to not get at least a little enjoyment out of it) rather they are trying to solve specific problems and often adjust results to better focus on the principal issues.

I actually had this conversation with some wargamers several years ago, a couple of them with some experience running games for the military. We were talking about the Navy's "unsinkable" aircraft carriers; seemingly in some games run during the cold war games resulting in the loss of an American carrier were stopped immediately, the carrier refloated and the game continued (so we're not talking about some new behavior on the part of the military). The logic for this action, while seldom explained to the people running the games, is that any loss of a carrier is so catastrophic as to automatically assume immediate failure and rather than continue the scenario from an unwinnable position they would adjust casualties to allow continued productive gaming. Certainly the guys on the carriers never believed they were unkillable, they called the things missile-magnets after all.

There is no cheating at military wargames and it is unimportant who wins. They exist for purposes of training and testing plans only. The military wargames so it can fight wars better. If the man running the wargame decides a generated result detracts from that mission then he will change the result. Even if that same result should happen in a real war it has no bearing on the purpose and benefits of the wargame. It's nothing new at all to have a disgruntled "red" player complain when they aren't allowed to win based on their own skillful play. The guys in OPFOR at Fort Irwin had to learn that lesson too. While it's satisfying to hand the blue team a sound thrashing, the goal is to make them better at beating the red team.

 

[clk]

The problem, however, is that Cindy's lunacy is being embraced by the left. She's being promoted, not repudiated.

I really don't see the point of this thread. The conservatives also promote people like Rush and Coulter. One is a drug addict, the other is a raving lunatic. Both of them say all kinds of controversial things to get media attention or better ratings, but you don't see me starting a new thread about them each time they say something.
For example, Coulter once said:

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

Does that make Ann Coulter a terrorist? Are members of the right terrorist supporters because they all didn't repudiate her? Of course not. I think Coulter probably just said that to get media attention, I doubt she honestly believes in bombing the NYT building. Same thing for Sheehan. Do any of you honestly believe that she is really a terrorist supporter? Do you think, that if you gave her an AK-47 and put her in Iraq, that she would start shooting at American troops? If she is really a terrorist supporter, then why would she want Bush to bring back our troops? Wouldn't it benefit her cause more if the US stayed in Iraq and more of our troops died and more of our money was wasted?

 

[Jocko]

Mark, to help you evaluate Cindy Sheehan's political merit in toto, here are some other examples, in chronological order, from Cindy's own blog.

8/11/05:

If he starts talking about freedom and democracy -- or about how the war in Iraq is protecting America -- I’m not going to let him get away with it.

In her very first entry, she makes it clear only one answer will do. Talk about strangling discourse in its cradle...!

8/12/05:

I have discovered that the White House press corps is always looking for something to do and someone to cover. We have been happy to oblige them. We had a press conference today with Gold Star Families for Peace and Military Families Speak Out members. It was very effective when people who actually have skin in the game ask the president to be held accountable for the words he has actually said.

Unless they disagree with her, of course, as she proved with her most recent entries. But then, who would have the temerity to argue with a grieving mother? That, of course, is her primary defense. It's crumbling now, and she's showing the strain. But back to the timeline...

The wheels start to really come off on 8/14/05:

The CBS reporter whom I met last Saturday when I began this Holy War against the War of Terrorism that George Bush is waging on the world told me that he has interviewed me 4 times this week already. He told me that he has never, ever interviewed anyone 4 times, let alone four times in one week.

Wow. Four times. Getting in front of a camera and calling the president a terrorist will do that for a person. Sorry, no time for actual evidence or conversation on the issue; time for a commercial break!

We see the backpeddling begin on 8/17/05:

Another "big deal" today was the lie that I had said that Casey died for Israel. I never said that, I never wrote that. I had supposedly said it in a letter that I wrote to Ted Koppel's producer in March. I wrote the letter because I was upset at the way Ted treated me when I appeared at a Nightline Town Hall meeting in January right after the inauguration. I felt that Ted had totally disrespected me. I wrote the letter to Ted Bettag and cc'd a copy to the person who gave me Ted's address. I believe he changed the email and sent it out to capitalize on my new found notoriety by promoting his own agenda. Enough about that.

Funny, we've seen some convincing evidence from other quarters that suggests she actually did write that. Dan B. offered once source.

Makes me wonder why she's not camped out on Ted Koppel's front lawn.

8/18/05:

Even after my repeated attempts to keep the focus of my protest on the war, the Drudge Report and others continue to try to make the issue about me. But I am not the issue.

The backpeddling continues. She didn't seem to mind the attention when it was stroking her ego, like when CBS interviewed her four times (that's FOUR times! Can you believe it?)

Things become more shrill on 8/20/05:

One thing I haven't noticed or become aware of though is an increased number of pro-war, pro-Bush people on the other side of the fence enlisting to go and fight George Bush's war for imperialism and insatiable greed.

My son died for NOTHING, and George Bush and his evil cabal and their reckless policies killed him. My son was sent to fight in a war that had no basis in reality and was killed for it.

I have no idea what to make of the bipolar nonsense of 8/22/05:

We as mothers need to stop buying into the load of misogynistic crap that our children need our constant presence in their lives so they can thrive and grow.

No, they don't need your constant smothering influence. Not until they're dead, of course.

8/25/05:

Another sham election where the country is shut down for the day and no one knows what the heck they are voting for?

Iraq's elections were a sham? Says who?

If he cares so much about an Iraqi Constitution, why doesn't he take some time from his busy vacation activities and read the US Constitution. He may find out that he started an un-Constitutional war in Iraq. He may lose some sleep over it. (What am I saying?)

Good question.. what the hell are you saying?

Now we are spreading "freedom and democracy" but we are building 14 permanent bases, some the size of Sacramento, Ca. To me that indicates that we are spreading the cancer of imperialism and usurping THEIR natural resources.

Just like we did in Germany, Japan, S. Korea... right? You know, all those territories under our oppressive imperial thumb? This is fifth-grade stuff!

8/24/05:

Because every death is now a meaningless one. And the vast majority of our country knows this.

Mighty assumptive, Cindy. But that may explain why you're so shocked that someone, anyone, could disagree with your message or tactics.

And finally, on 8/27/05:

I finally figured out George Bush's NEW reason for staying in Iraq. This reason has also been co-opted by the Move America Forward and the poor mothers who would be honored if their sons were killed in George Bush's war for greed and power.

It's officially a conspiracy!

have continually asked George Bush to quit using Casey's name and the names of the other Gold Star Families for Peace loved ones to justify his continued killing.

I've never heard Casey's name uttered by anyone not associated with Cindy herself. Can anyone find me an example of Bush's misuse of Casey's name?

I have been silent on the Gold Star Moms who still support this man and his war by saying that they deserve the right to their opinions because they are in as much pain as I am. I would challenge them, though, at this point to start thinking for themselves.

There's that old time elitism. If you're not with her, you're against her. Sound familiar?

How can these moms who still support George Bush and his insane war in Iraq want more innocent blood shed just because their sons or daughters have been killed? I don't understand it. I don't understand how any mother could want another mother to feel the pain we feel. I am starting to lose a little compassion for them. I know they have been as brainwashed as the rest of America, but they know the pain and heartache and they should not wish it on another. However, I still feel their pain so acutely and pray for these "continue the murder and mayhem" moms to see the light.

And that's a wrap, folks, Cindy's 15 minutes are over. Thanks for watching. Up next: the media turns ugly and feasts on their former champion.

So how about it, Mark? Are you willing to align yourself with someone who says these things on her own blog?

 

[Mark]

What I want is not simply acknowledgment that she was wrong, because that's not enough. Here, I'll give you some examples:
This statement is wrong: "Irish people have twelve fingers".
This statement is immoral: "Irish people deserve to be killed".

I did that. Several times.


Cindy's statement that terrorists were freedom fighters is not simply wrong. THAT is what I want acknowledgement of. If you're really unable to figure it out, then yes, I can write a statement and have you sign off on it. But what I'm asking really isn't that much, and it really isn't hard.


So now you want me to say her comment was immoral as well as wrong? It's stupid and wrong. The dictionary defines immoral as "wrong." So if her saying that is immoral, then so is your support of this war...because it most certainly is wrong.


No, actually, you've got this completely backwards. Arguments must stand on their own, regardless of the source. This means that her arguments have no particular authority because of her status as the mother of a dead soldier, but it ALSO means that any of her arguments which have merit are NOT discounted by the fact that she's a terrorist supporter. You don't need her to make your arguments, you never did.

I have seen nothing in her words to indicate to me that she is a "terrorist supporter." That she called them "freedom fighters" was stupid. Does that indicate she supports them? Or does it indicate she was engaging in silly hyperbole? I don't know and neither do you (unless you are intending to claim the JREF prize for mind reading). You have offered nothing that indicates she is supporting the terrorists.


Or do all U.S. citizens need to check in with you for proper wording before they say anything?