any old nonsense from the NYT

So you consider that in this instance (whatever its record, and we surely agree on that) the NYT is talking "any old nonsense"? Care to back that up with particulars?

As for the Angry Arab's credentials, sure. Does that make him an indisputable authority in every case?

As always, reports or opinions we are looking at should be judged on their merits. What we know of the source and how seriously we take it obviously enters into that judgement. But blanket dismissal or blanket approval shouldn't.