The proven liars who can't understand why people mistrust them

Babbling Bibi. I'm always amused by liars who can't comprehend why people have ceased to accept their claims. For an excellent example, take a look at the image re-posted above. Do we need any further reason to discount everything said by Benjamin Netanyahu in his most recent address? No, we do not -- although we should also note that Mossad contradicted Bibi's 2012 claims (delivered before the UN) that Iran poses a grave nuclear menace.

Bibi-watchers know that this man has compiled a long history of prevarication.

His recent speech was just one small part of a massive media effort to convince Americans that Iran poses a serious threat. Look at Iran's history: When was the last time that nation ever started a war? Iran is far less militaristic than are the United States and Israel, two of the most barbarous and dangerous countries on earth.

Silly Stevie. For another example of a liar whose bullshit can no longer find buyers, consider Steve Emerson. You know how people write LOL even when they have not actually laughed out loud? Emerson's missive to Talking Points Memo literally made me LOL. In fact, it almost brought me to the ROFLMAO point.

How is it that TPM has never called me or my organization for more than 15 years about all the news we disclosed on major stories concerning radical Islamic terrorism?

Has TPM secretly taken materials from CAIR as part of a explicit agreement to advance CAIR’s agenda? (Don’t worry, perjury can only be invoked when you are under oath)

You will recall, of course, that Emerson was the lunatic who said that Birmingham, England had become a Muslim-only zone. Actually, he had discredited himself long before that.

Back in the early 1990s, in a major piece assailing the "October Surprise" story, Emerson claimed to have uncovered Secret Service documents which provided George H.W. Bush with an alibi for a key date. This "evidence" was imaginary, as Emerson later admitted.

Mendacious Mark. The right-wing staged one of its patented blogswarms the other day -- and this one, surprisingly enough, had nothing to do with Brett Kimberlin. It was all about an alleged "Reuters" story by one Mark Langfan, who claimed that Obama threatened to shoot down the Israeli Air force if it attacked Iran.

Maybe Obama did and maybe Obama didn't. I don't know. But I do know this: Only a drooling idiot would go to a guy like Mark Langfan for the straight skinny on that topic -- or any other topic.

The piece in which Markie-poo makes that claim is filled with howlers. For example, he claims that Obama's alleged shoot-down policy came at the instigation of Zbigniew Brzezinski, who, we are told, hates Israel.

(What does Mark Langfan have against Zbig? Isn't Zbig a neocon? Well, yes, he is -- but not the right kind of neocon. Zbig is more concerned with hating Russia than with hating whoever the Israelis tell him to hate.)

Langfan's reportage derives from a few dubious stories published in a handful of tiny Middle Eastern newspapers. Come on: Do you really think that "a Bethlehem paper you’ve never heard of" would know the American President's innermost secrets?

Turns out this Langfan fellow doesn't work for Reuters at all, and isn't even a journalist. He's a lawyer who has transformed himself into an online annoyance. I get the impression that Langfan has hopes of becoming the new Michael Savage; right now, he's the Sub-Savage. 

That last link includes a particularly amusing example of Langfanian "logic"...

... today, Israel is surrounded by millions of people who are religiously inspired by the genocidal hate of Adolf Hitler.

Take Iran. Why did Persia change its name to Iran? In 1935, Reza Shah, the head of Persia changed the name of "Persia" to "Iran" because Reza Shah was a rabid Nazi-Hitler lover and wanted to show common cause with Hitler.

"Iran," in Farsi, means "Land of the Aryans." Therefore, today, the "Islamic Republic of Iran" really means the "Islamic Republic of Hitler."

It is, in fact, true that the Shah of Iran used "Light of the Aryans" as one of his titles. And when the Shah was in power, just who was his closest Middle Eastern ally?

That's right: Israel.

That fact used to be common knowledge. I recall attending a dinner party in the 1980s in which an Israeli guest described his happy experiences in the Shah's Iran. Alas, most of today's young people know nothing about the alliance between Israel and "Hitlerland East," and professional liars like Langfan don't want the current generation to learn anything about what really happened.

(By the way: Although it has fallen out of favor, the term "Aryan" continues to be used by some linguists and enthnographers. Nazi usage of that word was pure pseudoscience; neither the Germans nor any other European group had a right to call themselves "Aryans." The Iranians may be the only modern people we can call "Aryan" with any degree of accuracy, although most scholars would use the term "Indo-European." We may safely presume that all academics would scoff at Langfan's claim that "Aryan" may be considered a synonym for "Hitler.") 

Hilarious Hounshell and ignorable Ignatius. A particularly bizarre exercise in absurdity began when Politico editor Blake Hounshell tweeted a non-story claiming that Ed Snowden's lawyer was trying to negotiate Snowden's return to the United States. In fact, absolutely nothing had changed on the Snowden front. Hounshell had taken a story that should have read "The snow was white and cold today, as always" and turned it into "Oh my God! Today's snowfall was purple! And HOT! Everything in the world has CHANGED!"

The teevee pundits followed Hounshell's lead. David Ignatius hopped onto the CNN airwaves and bleated the following...

It must be very difficult to be Edward Snowden, living in the Moscow of Vladimir Putin, at a time when Putin’s opposition is being murdered in the streets, so I can’t help but think that Snowden wants out, and the fact that he’s willing to negotiate, which he said before he wouldn’t do, is interesting.

Hilarious. Glenn Greenwald's response is worth quoting...

For more than 60 years, U.S. elites have been eager to tell Americans that anyone living in Russia is inherently miserable. That’s particularly true of Western dissidents: the apocryphal stories of British defector Kim Philby being destroyed by a dark, lonely, miserable existence that culminated in his drinking himself to death are often invoked to suggest that a similar fate awaits Snowden (who doesn’t drink, who lives with his longtime girlfriend, who is regarded as a hero by millions and millions of people around the world, who receives awards and prestigious appointments, and who is incredibly gratified and fulfilled both by what he did and his current life).

That’s all Ignatius is up to with these claims, all based on the obvious media-created fiction that Snowden has suddenly realized how desperate he is to leave Russia. Again, this entire conversation — like the whole media blitz yesterday about this story — is all based on utter fiction.

This “everyone-in-Russia-is-miserable” line has been a staple of U.S propaganda since the end of World War II, and remarkably, nothing has changed.

The bottom line. People wonder how we can separate truth from fiction. Simple: Check resumes. Folks who have lied to you in the past may well be lying to you now.