Hot mic: Obama begs Russians for ‘space’ on missile defense talks
President blames election woes in private entreaty caught on tape
By Dave Boyer
-
SEOUL — Unaware that a microphone was recording him, President Obama asked outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev Monday for breathing room until after Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign to negotiate on missile defense.

“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space,” Mr. Obama told Mr. Medvedev at the end of their 90-minute meeting, apparently referring to incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Mr. Medvedev replied, “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…”

“This is my last election,” Mr. Obama said. “After my election, I have more flexibility.”

The Russian leader responded, “I understand. I transmit this information to Vladimir.”

The exchange was picked up by microphone of a Russian reporter as journalists were allowed into the meeting room for remarks by the two leaders. It was first reported by ABC News, which said it verified the conversation. A Washington Times reporter heard a portion of the tape that begins with Mr. Obama saying, “This is my last election.”

The two leaders are in Seoul for a nuclear security summit involving the heads of more than 50 nations. Mr. Obama and Mr. Medvedev were huddling close together in their respective chairs when the conversation took place.

White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes, who attended the meeting, at first said he didn’t hear the exchange and couldn’t comment on it. Within an hour, however, Mr. Rhodes issued a statement via email that said the U.S. “is committed to implementing our missile defense system, which we’ve repeatedly said is not aimed at Russia.”

“However, given the longstanding difference between the U.S. and Russia on this issue, it will take time and technical work before we can try to reach an agreement,” Mr. Rhodes said. “Since 2012 is an election year in both countries, with an election and leadership transition in Russia and an election in the United States, it is clearly not a year in which we are going to achieve a breakthrough. Therefore, President Obama and President Medvedev agreed that it was best to instruct our technical experts to do the work of better understanding our respective positions, providing space for continued discussions on missile defense cooperation going forward.”

The image of Mr. Obama putting off a difficult national security question due to re-election concerns is the opposite of what the White House intended for this trip. Mr. Obama’s first event upon landing in Korea on Sunday was to visit the Demilitarized Zone separating North and South Korea for a photo-op of him gazing across no-man’s land at a forward Army observation post.

Mr. Medvedev told reporters that he believes missile defense talks between the two countries “could be more active.”

“I believe we still have time; time hasn’t run out,” Mr. Medvedev said. “And now we need to discuss and cooperate on various aspects on European missile defense. Now, in my view, time has come for discussions between technical aspects and, of course, we remain at our own positions, both the United States and Russian Federation.”

When he knew he was speaking for the microphones, Mr. Obama said only, “We’ve got more work to do between our two countries. Dmitry identified some areas of continued friction — missile defense being an example. And what we’ve agreed to is to make sure that our teams, at a technical level, are in discussions about how some of these issues can be resolved.”

The U.S. and its NATO allies are pursuing a missile defense shield, while Russia objects that it would compromise its security. Mr. Rhodes said the U.S. has continuously told the Russians that the shield is not being developed as a defense against Russia, and that the two nations should move forward on a broad range of nuclear weapons issues rather than bog down over the shield issue.

Ahtman wrote:

Obama didn't say anything that isn't true. Any President will have more room to work in their second term. Being in an election year just makes it even more true. It is politics 101. Republican or Democrat, you have to know when to present something when it has the best chance of happening, and when you are at apex of partisanship i.e. an election, it is difficult to get much done. You don't just randomly present issues to the national legislature, unless you work in the House of Representatives, of course.

As to the assumption to getting re-elected, well, you don't get to be President if you have low self esteem.

Ahtman wrote:A Lame Duck, politically speaking, is the time after an election and you are the loser just waiting to hand over power, or about to hit a term limit. If Obama loses the election the time in between losing and the abdication of the office would qualify, as would the end of his second term when a new President has been elected but before he/she (lol) takes office.

Melissia wrote:Amusing, but I never mocked Romney for changing his views, why would I mock Obamia for acknowledging the nationally known truth that he'll have more flexibility when he's not up for election?

How will he have more flexibility?

LordofHats wrote:I actually think this says more about the American voter than it does about Obama.

How will he have more flexibility?

Because he won't have to worry about the outcome of any missile defense agreement (which will most likely need a lot of compromises with Russia).

The day a leader can't compromise in the international scene because voters don't like compromise is a said day to be a leader

LordofHats wrote:The Senate has to ratify sure, but the senate can be convinced to do things that don't necessarily benefit individual senator's careers (especially because their terms are longer than a Presidents and voters have short memories). A President is especially free to convince if he's no longer worried about his future electability.

Frazzled wrote:Exactly how is he going to convince them?

"Do what I say"
"why?"
"Er...uh...look over there!" (runs away)

LordofHats wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Exactly how is he going to convince them?

"Do what I say"
"why?"
"Er...uh...look over there!" (runs away)

Nah more like this:

"I'm gonna make you an offer you can't refuse"
"What?"
"A free iPod and these smashing suits."

Frazzled wrote:
Exactly how is he going to convince them?

"Do what I say"
"why?"
"Er...uh...look over there!" (runs away)

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Exactly how is he going to convince them?

"Do what I say"
"why?"
"Er...uh...look over there!" (runs away)

The same way he would convince them in his first term?

The threat "I might be re-elected!" is hardly compelling. Hell, if anything in this case that would be an incentive for many people on the other side of the aisle to kill the treaty.

I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that second term Presidents can't influence Congress because they're not up for reelection in 4 years. They're still the President, and still have the full scope of Presidential power, which is their primary means of compulsion. I mean, there's a reason that there is active debate regarding whether or not lame-duck status even means anything. Not that it matters, because being in your second term doesn't make you a lame duck.

Frazzled wrote:
They can influence, but their influence is much less.

Frazzled wrote:
Given Obama's lack of influence sine he lost the House, I don't see how people can think he will have more power, unless they think the Democrats retake the House.

Frazzled wrote:
Historically, very few major Presidential achievements are achieved in a second term that involved non-executive only powers. Roosevelt would be the exception.

d-usa wrote:A President in his last year can still do a lot if his party also controlls both chambers.

Frazzled wrote:In the words of the immortal bard: we'll see.

ph34r wrote:This all seems well and good.

I don't understand how any Republican would have issue with this, unless they are just looking to be contrary to a Democratic president.

Frazzled wrote:

ph34r wrote:This all seems well and good.

I don't understand how any Republican would have issue with this, unless they are just looking to be contrary to a Democratic president.

Because the WH promised this wouldn't happen

Seaward wrote:The right wing sites that I peruse to ensure I haven't lost the capacity for rage are howling about how this proves Obama's traitorous anti-American socialist communist Muslim agenda. Again.

Ahtman wrote:

Seaward wrote:The right wing sites that I peruse to ensure I haven't lost the capacity for rage are howling about how this proves Obama's traitorous anti-American socialist communist Muslim agenda. Again.

They do that if he sneezes as well, or talks about any subject whatsoever.

Phanatik wrote:It's sad to see an American president that bows before arab potentates is now groveling before the russian dictator.

This story only proves that Obama is too busy running for office to govern the country.

Enemies of the U.S., now is the time to attack!! Obama doesn't have time to respond... he's either at a fundraiser or golfing.

Regards,

Phanatik wrote:It's sad to see an American president that bows before arab potentates is now groveling before the russian dictator.

This story only proves that Obama is too busy running for office to govern the country.

Enemies of the U.S., now is the time to attack!! Obama doesn't have time to respond... he's either at a fundraiser or golfing.

Seaward wrote:The right wing sites that I peruse to ensure I haven't lost the capacity for rage are howling about how this proves Obama's traitorous anti-American socialist communist Muslim agenda. Again.