When I was working for the United Nation Association-USA as a communications intern, I was forced to read The Washington Times (and few other newspapers) thrice weekly, to scan its pages for any report or analysis on the United Nations. A worst newspaper I have not read.

The Washington Times (not to be mistaken with Washington Post) cater for the extreme right-wing Americans, often featuring views that are outright racist. If you are familiar with the New York Post (again not be confused with the New York Times), then The Washington Times is its sibling in the Beltway.

They aren't, by the way, the standard bearers of American conservatism, either. There are other newspapers, like National Review and Wall Street Journal , which, though conservative, are at least respectable. The Washington Times does not qualify to be in that league, by any stretch of imagination.

Hence, I was very much surprised reading a letter that appeared yesterday in your pages ('US should not be fooled into backing Anwar', Aug 20). It is rather bizarre that the writer should think so highly of the report authored by someone who belongs to one conservative think tank. (Their [#1] website[/#] by the way, describes them as, "a conservative/free market foundation"; they aren't non-partisan, as reported by Bernama .)

Our Malaysian leaders often condemn the West, its domineering manner, and its supposed know-all attitude. If there is one newspaper that should be a total anathema to everything we, Malaysians, stand for, then that has to be The Washington Times . I have never, ever come across even a single article in its pages that has said anything good about Islam, or Arabs in particular.

All writings on Islam always has that 'green peril' connotation. And, yet, now we see Malaysia, in all countries, embracing these cooks. I know not any other situation that defines irony better.