Christ.
No. It's not direct.
Ok, so we now know we agree that she was wrong.
"Indirect" is, at best, opinion since it can't be proven or disproven.
The Saudi's both help us in the process, and (it could be argued) hurt us. We can point to and explain direct ways they help us, we can argue about indirect ways they hurt us; but the arguments could be considered pretty valid in that they do. We should also be able to agree that the Saudi government is NOT al Queda, so the link is more tenuous to argue indirect support of al Queda.
So, personally, I think it is VERY fair to say the people did "think about what she said and why she said it", and are arguing against what she said and why she said it. They are not arguing because she made a good point - we have now agreed she did not - and they just don't like it. They are arguing against her point because it is patently false, and saying something like that (directly supporting al Queda) is reason to be tried for treason and killed. She was literally arguing such a thing was what Trump was doing.
If we are going to be all snarky about a president who uses poor wordsmanship and therefore is inadequate as president (which argument has been made repeatedly on here by some), then we should hold candidates for nomination to party candidate for president to the same standard, and belittle the piss-poor words the same way.
Trump is a blow-hard, a crappy speaker, a braggart, and exaggerator. We know that about him. We take his words and construe them to what we think they mean in context, excusing the piss-poor wording. That action of the machinations of his speech are routinely and resoundingly criticized by many, not the least of which is you. If you want to hold him to that standard, you must hold this candidate to the same standard.
Or, you can hereby acknowledge that it is valuable to understand what someone MEANS. Surely she did not mean that she thinks the president of the United States directly supports a terrorist organization, or that she can prove an indirect support of the terrorist organization, but rather that she disagrees with a public policy begun by Bush, continued by Obama, and further continued by Trump that has given us material support in mid-east conflicts as well as can be argued has allowed for detrimental attitudes and treatment of the United States. She would have a different policy, which of course would result in a loss of the material, tangible support in return for what she believes would be a reduction in indirect harm.
But, she's not smart enough to say that. That doesn't fit on a bumper sticker. So, she said, "the president directly supports al Queda", which is divisive and harmful to national peace and security - but she doesn't care because she's a liberal trying to remove the president from office, or get a really cushy assignment in the administration of whomever does.
She's feces for doing so.
Now, I don't mean that literally, just so you know.
