Or at least, you shouldn't. I may not be perfect, but I try very hard to evaluate peoples statements based on WHAT they said rather than WHO said it or in what context. Sure, I'll question the facts of someone who's hyperpartisan, but if their facts check out that's not invalidated by who presented them. The full text of the EESC Presidents statements clarified the meaning of one of those statements that would HAVE no meaning otherwise. It was still a forced connection, and an exploitive one, and I said so; how you or I feel about each others politics is neither here nor there to that. The full text of Rushs statements only reinforced the explicit meaning of the excerpt.

You offered those statements as an out for Rush:


You mentioned context ONCE in the course of many attempts to justify Rushs statement as spoken; now we've got the benefit of the transcript and, guess what: He actually WAS accusing environmentalists of blaming the tsunami on global warming (and of blaming the earthquake on fracking) with no more evidence than his certainty that they WILL. That's a far cry from the EESC President calling for solidarity on climate change in two lines of a multiparagraph call for GENERAL solidarity during the disaster. He clearly called for general solidarity, btw; saying it was a "statement in regards to Japan calling for solidarity to fight climate change" ignores that (though it would justify Rushs comments were it accurate): He mentioned global warming, but that was not the focus, though he shouldn't have mentioned it at all in reference to this disaster.

Then you go on to cite other examples of extremist liberal comments that somehow also justify Rushs statements, despite the fact that none of them blame the tsunami on global warming, because they give Rush "the advantage that there are a lot of loons out there who say thing like" the radical quotes you cited. That not "context will clarify he didn't mean what it sounds like", it's "his factually untrue statement is legitimate because of all the crazy stuff environmentalist radicals say". Nice try though.