>This seems like a contradiction. How can you call him
>an "apologist" for the prosecution in one sentence and
>then say that you doubt that he "intended" that in the
>next?
Because intent often has nothing to do with how remarks are interpreted. In this case, quoting some dubious remarks Stewart made makes her indictment seem less outrageous and more reasonable. I.e., maybe she is a TerrSymp. In cases like this, just zip it.
Doug