Tim Blair

"The New York Times is arguably the most respected newspaper in the world."

I'm detecting serious reality issues here...

Loewenstein can't even be bothered to check his own links, so why should we believe anything he writes about Miller?

Loewenstein claims that "When Howard addressed the Australian people on March 20, 2003 to announce Australia’s commitment to the invasion, he frequently mentioned Iraq’s links to terrorism and possession of WMD. Not once did he mention the human rights of the Iraqi people."

He then links to Howard's March 20 speech, which states:

"Another point I'd make to you very strongly is that we're not dealing here with a regime of ordinary brutality. There are many dictatorships in the world. - but this is a dictatorship of a particularly horrific kind.

His is an appalling regime: its torture, its use of rape as an instrument of intimidation; the cruelty to children to extract confessions from parents. It is a terrible catalogue of inflicting human misery on a people who deserve much better.

This week, the Times of London detailed the use of a human shredding machine as a vehicle for putting to death critics of Saddam Hussein. This is the man, this is the apparatus of terror we are dealing with.

The removal of Saddam Hussein will lift this immense burden of terror from the Iraqi people."

If that passage in Howard's speech is not about "the human rights of the Iraqi people", I don't know what is.

The SMH must have searched far and wide to find someone as unhinged as Margo the Mad.

Agreed Dave. I think it would be one hell of an argument for Loewenstein to have to defend post-Jayson.

Someone should "expose" the Loensteiom family. I think you would find the results interesting, if he is the son of the great thinker Wendy Lowenstein.

I just wonder what the Times would be like if they were against the War on Terror. (*shudder*)

Sue, if you do some research, I think you'll find that Antony Loewenstein is no relation to Wendy Lowenstein. The subtle difference in the spelling of their surnames may just be one obvious sign.

While one may not agree with Loewenstein's work, I believe he makes an important point about truth, accuracy and accountability in the media. And rightly so.

Sue, if you do some research, I think you'll find that Antony Loewenstein is no relation to Wendy Lowenstein. The subtle difference in the spelling of their surnames may just be one obvious sign.

While one may not agree with Loewenstein's work, I believe he makes an important point about truth, accuracy and accountability in the media. And rightly so.

Perplexing. I clearly recall the NYT editorial explicitly opposing the Iraq war before it was launched (essentially on a "there is no credible threat" line), so it's a bit wierd to see them being lambasted for supporting Bush, based on the errors of a particular journalist.

That's a bit like accusing The Australian of being a journal of the loony left because they publish Phillip Adams. Is that esteemed - and wholly conservative - publication to be held responsible for the views of Mr Adams?

Doubtless the NYT will be bemused by Antony's attack. Poor blighters - they seem to be losing the respect of the left as well as the right. Can't take a trick, can they?

Judith Miller works for the New York Times.
Judith Miller supported war in Iraq.
Ergo, the New York Times promoted the war in Iraq.

Where have we seen this sort of scientific reasoning before?

Q. Tell me. What do you do with witches?
A. Burn! Burn them up! Burn!...
Q. And what do you burn apart from witches?
A. Wood!
Q. So, why do witches burn?
A. B--... 'cause they're made of... wood?