Whenever I read something that really sounds unlikely, especially if it is something that is going to make one side of the aisle jump up and say “a-HA!”—then it usually means taking said info with a grain of salt (if not a shaker). This is especially true when the source isn’t a known quantity, such as The Daily Times of Pakistan. So when I saw this via Memeorandum this morning, I was a bit suspicious: Clinton urges EU to convict publishers of caricatures

Former US president Bill Clinton on Friday condemned the publication of Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) caricatures by European newspapers and urged countries concerned to convict the publishers.

The former president is hardly my favorite, but that just didn’t seem to be at all likely for any US president to say. Indeed, when I read the BBC version, and it made no mention of what would be a radical statement, I figured that the Pakistani paper had gotten it wrong, whether on purpose or not, who can say?

Mark in Mexico had the same reaction, and checked numerous stories to find no other references to the alleged comment. McQ at QandO looked at the available video and saw nothing even close to the quote, although notes a possible place for a mistranslation.

Of course, all of this reinforces why I don’t trust WorldNetDaily: WorldNetDaily: Clinton in Pakistan: Convict cartoon publishers. Indeed, WND seems to frequently post too-sensational-to-be-true stories that no one else reports.