While my story is based on the reports already out there publicly, CNN sites all sorts of “sources”. Both articles say much the same thing, but what strikes me is the dramatically different tone.

On 9/11/07, General Petraeus predicted the troop level would be down to 130,000 by this summer. In April of this year, the AP said the pause would leave over 100,000 troops in Iraq by the time President Bush leaves office. The reality is that 146,000 troops are still there, and the Pentagon is urging the President to keep them there until he is out of office. Then, and only then, they suggest that 7,500 troops could be pulled out of Iraq, and most of them would end up in Afghanistan. These are the facts as I presented then this morning. Here is what CNN said:

The top U.S. general in Iraq is recommending nearly 8,000 troop cuts in Iraq because of the improving situation there, a source close to the process has told CNN.

Nowhere is it mentioned that what they’re actually proposing is a several-month-long further delay of already planned troop cuts. And what is the deal with “because of the improving situation there” featuring so prominently in the opening paragraph? What sense does that make? The situation has improved so much that a year later we still can’t reduce troops to the pre-surge level the General in charge predicted a year ago when he said the surge had accomplished all its goals? Can someone explain that to me?

For instance, one of the recent headlines that continues to run across the network tickers is Barack Obama’s visit to Europe and the Middle East — to boost his foreign policy credentials.

Exactly how does visiting heads-of-state, for mere hours, boost ones credentials?  Remember, these are the same officials that never drive themselves, use their own Blackberry’s or ride the very public transportation that they champion at election time — let alone breath the same air as hoi polloi.

In fact, I have spent the last year living and working in Korea and Taiwan yet I wouldn’t consider myself an expert on anything but the ability to find the nearest washroom (and McDonalds).

Thus, what about the foreign policy credentials of backpackers, retirees, businessmen and other expats who at least lived with and regularly dialogued with the local taxpayers?   If Obama or McCain visited a nuclear power plant for an hour, do they receive a engineering bump and are now capable of  designing reactor cores?  Dare one relish the day when the politicos visit a brain surgeon or OBGYN?

See also: The Rise of the Imperial Class

And check out Antiwar Radio’s new YouTube channel!

Here’s the truth: the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons, and Iran doesn’t have a single one. But when the world was on the brink of nuclear holocaust, Kennedy talked to Khrushchev and he got those missiles out of Cuba. Why shouldn’t we have the same courage and the confidence to talk to our enemies? That’s what strong countries do, that’s what strong presidents do, that’s what I’ll do when I’m president of the United States of America.

If you guessed Ron Paul you would be wrong.

The correct answer is Obama. Despite the fact that strict non-interventionists like Paul have stated similar statements over the past several months (decades even), it is not until the “credible” frontrunner says it that it becomes a widely-cited talking point.

A quick Google search finds that Paul stated something very similar more than 6 years ago:

Even at the height of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union had missiles pointed at us from 90 miles away in Cuba, we solved the dispute through dialogue and diplomacy. Why is it, in this post Cold War era, that the United States seems to turn first to the military to solve its foreign policy problems? Is diplomacy dead?

In fact, Ron Paul has said similar statements many times. Back on November 11, 2007 Paul was interviewed on Face the Nation and he said:

I fear our policy towards Iran is a threat. [...] We [should] have a more sensible policy, we talk to them and trade with them. We remove the sanctions. I mean, the Soviets had 40,000 of them. I was called up for military duty in 1962 during the Cuban crisis. The height of the Cold War and we won the Cold War, we didn’t have to go a nuclear war. We won that by being strong by talking to the Soviets, we talked to Khrushchev. We have a lot more than Iran, Iran has none.

In March of 2006, Neil Cavuto interviewed Paul about this issue asking: Would our national security be threatened if Iran had the bomb?

Paul replied: “Could it be any worse than 30,000 nuclear missiles faced us down in the Cold War against the Soviets. Did we feel like we had to have regime change in the Cold War? Did we use containment and we can’t contain Iran?”

In the September 2007 debate hosted by Fox, moderator Brit Hume asked the candidates about a hypothetical situation involving an uncooperative, nuclear capable Iran.

Paul replied: “Thinking back to the 1960s when I was in the Air Force for 5 years and there was a Cold War going on and the Soviet’s 40,000 and we stood them down and we didn’t have to have a confrontation. We should back off. We should be talking to Iran right now. We shouldn’t be looking for the opportunity to attack them.”

In a post-debate interview with Bill O’Reilly regarding Iran, Ron Paul literally says many of the same things, including “How come we got through the Cold War when the Soviets had 40,000 of them?”

In November 2007 in an interview with CNN he is asked about a hypothetical situation in which Iran has nuclear weapons.

Paul replied: “I prefer them not to. I think if we have different foreign policy they wouldn’t have an incentive. But if they did, I wouldn’t do much about it — I wouldn’t bomb them. They are third rate nation. They are incapable of attacking their neighbors.”

These quotes are from just a cursory perusal of the large archive that can be found on YouTube (ron paul + iran).

I am not suggesting that Obama’s speech writer plagiarized but given that Paul has said the same thing for years one has to wonder if by sheer accident they caught a glimpse of the Paulian talking point and thought it made a lot of sense.

It sure is the sincerest form of flattery.

The Bureau of International Information Programs has created, at taxpayers expense, an entire website devoted to “Telling America’s Story,” or rather whitewashing the foreign policies enacted by the administration.

For those looking for objective independent analysis, you might as well tune in to the American Forces Network, at least with them you get to hear some decent tunes between speeches by Tokyo Rose.

See also: Operation Mockingbird and Neoconservatism: a CIA Front?