Well, she can hate the war all she wants, but saying its a sham is dishonoring her son by saying he died, basically for nothing, or rather a lie. She cant have it both ways, either her son died for a cause or he didn't. If she disagrees with what her son did and thinks he's gullible, its her qualm with him, but since hes no longer around, she throws this fit and blames the Pres. Even if he lied, the son did believe it, and she is pissing on his beliefs. If it was honorable, then where's the problem? A lie is not honorable, thus, dying in the war is not, to her. My end thought is basically, she can nag on this all she wants but when she brings her son up, she discredits herself. All she is doing is using him as a tool in her own agenda, it isnt what he would want, honoring his memory, you know someone dies you do something good in their name sure, but his thoughts aren't being considered, just hers. He isnt here so saying that she thinks he was gullible is a non-issue, because as he left it, he believed in what he did, if he comes up and says, yep, i screwed up it all changes. Kinda like, she isn't in any place to stand up for her son if she is only arguing her own point. I think we can agree to disagree, I like that it hasn't turned to weird stuff like it does at times on here. i can see both sides, too, just that I'm on this side, and I don't like this woman.