Can someone explain the logic or thought behind these tweets of Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth?

Alloush was released from jail, which was then one of the demands of those peaceful protesters and Human Rights Watch, so he could "taint" the "uprising". But he also was a valid "choice" for the Syrian people even as Roth's own organization accused him of war crimes? How does that compute?

Interestingly the link in the first tweet goes to an NYT piece by Anne Barnard which the Angry Arab described as:
A moving tribute to moderately polygamous, moderately sectarian, and moderately murderous, and moderately Salafite Zahran Alloush
The link in the second tweet sent only five days later goes to a more realistic biography of Alloush written by Aron Lund for Syria Comment.

It seem that Roth's opinions are more influenced by the latest piece he read than by case-based analysis. Or does it depend on which sponsor is more ready at this moment to shuffle big money into his pockets?