President Obama’s admission to outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, caught on a live microphone while on an official visit to Seoul, South Korea, that he would have more “flexibility” on missile defense after his “last election” and he required “space” from the Russians has forced the White House to enter full damage-control mode. The Obama administration appears aware that this is a deeply damaging admission ahead of a difficult reelection fight.
“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him [incoming President Vladimir Putin] to give me space,” Obama told Medvedev, “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”
Senior House and Senate Republicans, like Rep. Bob Turner and Sen. Jon Kyl, have openly criticized the president for what they consider trading away American national defense priorities and bilateral agreements made with allies for political favors from the Russians.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney also called the president’s admission deeply troubling. “President Obama signaled that he's going to cave to Russia on missile defense, but the American people have a right to know where else he plans to be 'flexible' in a second term," said Romney.
The president’s initial response was to make light of the incident, making the exaggerated gesture of covering a microphone while greeting his East Asian counterparts:
But the Obama administration quickly pivoted to a defensive posture, betraying the significance of this latest gaffe.
Obama denied that he was “hiding the ball” from voters on the nature of the president’s second term. He went on to decry the partisan nature of Washington and how difficult the media can make the job of leading the free world.
“The only way I get this stuff done is if I'm consulting with the Pentagon, with Congress, if I've got bipartisan support,” said Obama. “Frankly, the current environment is not conducive to those kinds of thoughtful consultations. I think the stories you guys have been writing over the last 24 hours (are) pretty good evidence of that.”
Obama campaigns spokesman Ben LaBolt hit back at Mitt Romney in particular after he criticized the president. “Once again Governor Romney is undermining his credibility by distorting the President's words," said LaBolt. “Governor Romney has been all over the map on the key foreign policy challenges facing our nation today, offering a lot of chest thumping and empty rhetoric with no concrete plans to enhance our security or strengthen our alliances.”
The president’s admission that his administration is willing to drop missile defense agreements with allies in Europe in order to curry Russian favor is nothing new but no less shocking and indefensible. In 2009, the Obama White House unilaterally scrapped plans for interceptor missiles and radar installations in Poland and the Czech Republic. American relations with those nations remain tense while U.S. concessions to Moscow have yielded nothing in the way of concrete benefits externally or within the Russian Federation.
True to form, like the oft-repeated mantra that the Stimulus was just “not big enough,” no concession to Moscow will be too much, particularly on the matter of missile defense initiatives which have been opposed by Democrats since President Reagan’s proposed Strategic Defense Initiative.
But missile defense technology is broadly popular and American geo-strategic competition with the Russians is a subject that does not elude the broader electorate. Republicans seem to think that Obama’s admission that his second term would be more “flexible” is the most damaging admission here, but all presidents enjoy a freer hand as a lame duck. That presupposition is baked into the electoral cake this year. What is the most damaging is the president’s discrete promise that American strategic and military initiatives are on the bargaining table and the president would trade tactical advantage abroad for political gain at home. There is no spinning Obama’s request for “space.”
That is deeply damaging to the president’s reelection efforts. The Republicans and GOP groups would be wise to leverage this incident against the president. The inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom assumes that the president is invulnerable on matters of national defense due to his administration’s ruthless prosecution of the war on terror (despite campaigning in 2008 against it), but the president is vulnerable on his cynical abdication of the preservation of American geopolitical power and his administration’s handling of great power politics.
This incident perfectly encapsulates the president’s naïveté – it is an electoral godsend for Republicans, but only if they use it wisely.
Comments (0)
Be the first to comment!