We've been detailing how WorldNetDaily has been trying to take credit for the New York Times' reporting about alleged proposed one-on-one talks between the U.S. and Iran, even though WND's Reza Kahlili made unproven, unsubstantiated claims that went far beyond what the Times reported.
Now, WND is trying to get others to back up Kahlili. its first choice, though, is a bad one.
An Oct. 23 WND article touts how "A former CIA analyst says a WND report that revealed Iranian sources confirming a deal between the Obama administration and a representative of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei over that nation’s nuclear program means the issue could not be used to “bludgeon” challenger Mitt Romney." It continues:
Larry Johnson, an ex-CIA analyst, said yesterday during an interview on the John Batchelor Show the revelation has pulled the rug from underneath any Obama campaign plans to take advantage of the situation.
“”There are two types of leaks in Washington,” he said. “One is when the official part of the administration gets it out there in order to help drive the story. The other is when someone who’s inside the administration who’s privy to what’s going on leaks it in order to derail it.
“I think this is a case of the latter. I don’t doubt Reza’s reporting at all. I think it’s quite accurate. What this ended up doing was derailing Obama’s attempt to try to take the high ground…”
If Larry Johnson's name sounds familiar, it should. He's best known for feverishly promoting the existence of what is infamously known as the "whitey tape" -- a supposed recording of Michelle Obama railing against "whitey." Just one problem: No such tape has ever surfaced. Johnson has peddled strange explanations about why the purported tape has never been released, always absolving himself.
We can presume that neither Batchelor nor Kahlili -- who was a guest along with Johnon on Batchelor's show -- asked Johnson about this alleged tape during his appearance. After all, that would have discredited Johnson and, by association, Kahlili -- and we can presume that right-winger Batchelor was not about to do that.
Meanwhile, a new follow-up article by Kahlili quotes more anonymous, unverifiable sources making related claims. Kahlili claimed that his "highly placed" source says that "after the WND revelation of the secret meeting, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was incensed." Kahlili added in yet another attempt to take credit for the Times' reporting: "The Iranian supreme leader demanded the Americans explain about the leak, which prompted the White House to leak a soft version of the story to the New York Times and deny the facts."
What facts? Kahlili has provided nothing that can be independently verified, and he has a history of making crackpot claims. WND has given its readers no reason whatsoever to trust anything Kahlili says.
Kahlili also has provided no evidence linking anything he has written to the Times' report, so he should really be less of an egomaniac about this.
In short: Unless Kahlili can deliver something beyond anonymous, unverifiable sources, he can't -- and shouldn't -- be trusted.