Exactly. The OP correctly argued that libre practically implies free-as-in-beer, but I think the point of the distinction is to argue that free-as-in-beer doesn't imply libre. So it's a useful distinction.
If that was the only point GNU was trying to make, I'd be in full support.
But that doesn't seem to be their only point. As I read it, they're arguing that freedom-of-speech does not imply freedom-from-cost. And I think that's nonsense (again, after the first sale).
Am I wrong to read their philosophy this way?