Obama to Russian leader: I’ll cave after I’m re-elected
Just a reminder, to those ambivalent about President Obama’s track record in his first term, of the kinds of things that could await us once he no longer has to run for re-election. From ABC News’ Jake Tapper:
At the tail end of his 90 minute meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev Monday, President Obama said that he would have “more flexibility” to deal with controversial issues such as missile defense, but incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to give him “space.”
The exchange was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room for remarks by the two leaders.
The exchange:
President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you …
President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.
Medvedev got his gist the first time, but Obama went ahead and made it quite explicit that he would cave to Putin once he’s safely ensconced in his second term. A couple of administration officials could only give half-hearted defenses of the president’s words to Tapper — after all, how do you defend Obama here?
The vaunted “reset” with Russia, botched even in its symbolism from the beginning, has been an utter failure. Moscow has been no help regarding Iran or Syria, its bullying domination of its “near abroad” has continued unabated, and all we have to show for it is less of a commitment on our part to erecting a missile defense that never had anything to do with curtailing Russia; Putin’s protests to the contrary were laughable to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the kinds of missiles in question.
And now, we get a preview of the further backtracking — er, resetting — toward the untrustworthy Putin we can expect in a second Obama term. One has to wonder which other world leaders have received such requests for “space,” and to what ends.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
333 comments Add your comment
Kyle Wingfield
March 26th, 2012
1:44 pm
In other words, MarkV, you have “contempt” for what I write, but no rebuttal.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
March 26th, 2012
1:46 pm
“If flexibility means cave by Obama, what does walking through a garden holding a Saudi Prince’s hand mean?”
Deflection, Finn. Typical for you.
“Obama said just last week we have way more missiles than we could ever use…”
Do not confuse “offensive” vs. “defensive” missiles, Finn.
carlosgvv
March 26th, 2012
1:46 pm
Kyle – 1:43
That’s apples and oranges. You know perfectly well Israel has a free hand to do whatever she wishes and the US must support her no matter what.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
March 26th, 2012
1:47 pm
“In other words, MarkV, you have “contempt” for what I write, but no rebuttal.”
You expected something else from MarkV, Kyle?
Kyle Wingfield
March 26th, 2012
1:48 pm
carlosgvv @ 1:46: Sorry, but that’s not an answer. Tell me how else such a statement could be interpreted — after all, you’re criticizing my interpretation of his words in this case.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
March 26th, 2012
1:49 pm
carlos, see my 1:43 and then try to make your case, son.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
March 26th, 2012
1:51 pm
Good topic today, Kyle. The libs on here are absolutely apoplectic!
MarkV
March 26th, 2012
1:52 pm
Kyle Wingfield @1:43 pm
It would mean just what he would have said, that he would have flexibility in choosing the course of action. It would not mean anything about caving in to anybody. You can run from your words, Kyle, but you cannot hide.
Big D
March 26th, 2012
1:54 pm
His meaning was clear. Aftter ther election, wink wink, he will give Putin whatever he wants. There is no way he means to do something that the american people would approve of or he wouldn’t have needed to hide his true intentions. Did you like the way he reached over and squeezed the Russians knee to assure him Obama was really on the Russians side. We can speculate as to why Obama feels a need to give Russia what it wants but there is only one conclusion. Unilaterally disarm without Senate approval or approval by the American people.
Jimmy62
March 26th, 2012
1:54 pm
But I thought Obama was perfect and would never use an election as an excuse to make different decisions than he would otherwise?
Romney’s aide made the etch-a-sketch comment. He should have been referring to Obama, who has now admitted that he changes views based on election considerations.
Jefferson
March 26th, 2012
1:55 pm
T you should try out for a soap, you got acting down… for a rank amature.
Jimmy62
March 26th, 2012
1:55 pm
MarkV: So you agree he’s an etch-a-sketch President who makes decisions based not on good or bad for the country, but on what it will take to win the next election?
saywhat?
March 26th, 2012
1:56 pm
“cave” as noted by others, is a poor interpretation of “flexibility” loaded with negative connotation without cause. To put the shoe on the other foot, suppose a Republican president wanted to wait until after an election to push for huge budget cuts, which though possibly unpopular, would in his view be in the best interests of the U.S.
While many on the left might view particular cuts against the interests of the country, in what way would that president have “caved” by waiting until after an election to try and implement them?
This Is A Solution Looking For A Problem (Flexibility vs Cave) Huh?
March 26th, 2012
1:56 pm
F – L – E – X – I – A – B – I – L – T – Y vs C – A – V – E
President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
WHERE DID HE SAY HE WOULD CAVE?
Flexibility should be mutually beneficial to both parties and result in superior outcomes.
Cave means to give up all opposition; yield.
THERE IS NOTHIHNG HERE.
Move on
saywhat?
March 26th, 2012
1:57 pm
Kyle owes the President an apology for questioning his patriotism.
Kyle Wingfield
March 26th, 2012
1:59 pm
MarkV: I’m not running from anything. I stand by what I wrote: There’s no charitable explanation for Obama here, despite your wish for there to be one.
Allison
March 26th, 2012
1:59 pm
Perhaps Obama was just blowing smoke up Medvedev’s a@#. Politicians are good at that. They call it “diplomacy”.
Big D
March 26th, 2012
2:00 pm
Why would Obama need flexibility that would not meet with the approval of the American voters? Please describe a policy that would be be in our best interest but the majority of us would throw him out of office if done prior to the election? This will be a case where the greatest communicator of all time has to have his underlings explain his meaning and it will probably be George Bush’s fault.
MarkV
March 26th, 2012
2:02 pm
Kyle Wingfield @1:44 pm: “In other words, MarkV, you have “contempt” for what I write, but no rebuttal.”
Yes, and I confirm my contempt for you. You have chosen a particular, offensive interpretation of Obama’s words. Why don’t you give us your evidence that flexibility means caving in? There are many issues that a negotiation like the one with Russians involves, and flexibility only means that none of the options are off the table.
Kyle Wingfield
March 26th, 2012
2:02 pm
saywhat @ 1:56: An apt analogy would be if a Republican president waited until after an election to raise taxes, unless you’re under the bizarre impression that Russia is part of Obama’s base. And, yes, Republican voters would see such an action as “caving.”
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
March 26th, 2012
2:02 pm
“To put the shoe on the other foot, suppose a Republican president wanted to wait until after an election to push for huge budget cuts, which though possibly unpopular, would in his view be in the best interests of the U.S.”
Simple. First, no President worth his salt would say such a thing to another foreign leader, nor would they say it within earshot.
Second, budget cuts don’t directly affect the national security of ourselves and our allies, as this decision (or lack thereof) does in this case.
And third, this is a mild deflection from you, saywhat?
JohnnyReb
March 26th, 2012
2:02 pm
Obama’s foreign policy failures trail very closely to his domestic disasters. He has done marginally better on foreign policy only in the area of taking the leash off the miliatary for drone use and sending a team to kill OBL. Both are military operations. He gets a big fat zero on diplomacy. I challenged the loyal followers once on Bookman’s blog to list one diplomatic achievement and they did not. Instead, they kept pointing out the military operations such as OBL.
I long ago gave up civility when it comes to Obama. He is a disaster every way you look at him and he must be voted out. Otherwise, we may never be able to fix what he has F’d up.
saywhat?
March 26th, 2012
2:02 pm
Kyle, Obama doesn’t need an explanation, charitable or not. There is however, no charitable explanation for you on this matter. You libelled the President, plain and simple.
Kyle Wingfield
March 26th, 2012
2:03 pm
Solution @ 1:56: If it’s mutually beneficial, why does he need to wait for the safety — that’s what he means by “flexibility” — of not having to be elected again?
This Is A Solution Looking For A Problem (Flexibility vs Cave) Huh?
March 26th, 2012
2:05 pm
Keep looking MAYBE JUST MAYBE you can find a PROBLEM that most of you
would like to find.
SO FAR, I don’t see one.
But keep LOOKING.
Junior Samples
March 26th, 2012
2:07 pm
So Reagan caved, right?
saywhat?
March 26th, 2012
2:07 pm
Kyle, in your 2:02, you are assuming that the Republican President would be doing something he might ordinarily be against, much as you are ASSUMING that President Obama intends to do something he would ordinarily be against, or something not in the US’s interests. As you should well know, not everything in our nation’s interest is popular. And just because YOU think something is against our best interests, doesn’t mean the president agrees with you, or that you are necessarily right.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
March 26th, 2012
2:08 pm
saywhat?, you effectively cannot libel a public official. Your poutrage is, however, noted and logged.
JF McNamara
March 26th, 2012
2:09 pm
@Kyle,
The inspection process can’t work because there is inherent distrust on both sides. That was my point. It led to war and poor relations. The strategy has not worked in either case, and would have failed with Russia.
Moscow did feel threatened. We are in their back yard, and in their sphere of influence. They were threatened by the potential loss of influence and force. We didn’t grant them a veto. We did the right thing. If Russia had put a “defense” system in Canada, Mexico and Cuba, we would be on the brink of war right now (or I would be campaigning against Obama).
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
March 26th, 2012
2:09 pm
“Keep looking MAYBE JUST MAYBE you can find a PROBLEM that most of you would like to find.
SO FAR, I don’t see one.”
Color me shocked!
MarkV
March 26th, 2012
2:09 pm
saywhat? @ 2:02 pm
Kyle may not have libeled the president, but he certainly insulted him and every rational person of this country.
Big D
March 26th, 2012
2:09 pm
Some here are using the word flexibility to hide ones intentions. The most “transparent administration” in history is hiding its true intentions from the voters to enable it to viiolate the voters trust. Nothing new for this administration. Middle of the night “nonaffordable health destructon act” passed against the wishes of we the people and Friday dumping of redacted documents in crimminal cases to avoid public inspection.
This Is A Solution Looking For A Problem (Flexibility vs Cave) Huh?
March 26th, 2012
2:10 pm
@Kyle Wingfield
March 26th, 2012
2:03 pm
Solution @ 1:56: If it’s mutually beneficial, why does he need to wait for the safety — that’s what he means by “flexibility” — of not having to be elected again?
***************************************
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you …
Duh…………..That is NOT OBAMA SPEAKING.
Those are the words of President Medvedev.
“that’s what he means by “flexibility” — of not having to be elected again? ”
So now YOU ALL can READ OBAMA’S MIND?
hmmmmmmmmmm
Jefferson
March 26th, 2012
2:11 pm
Keep trying, it ain’t working for you.
saywhat?
March 26th, 2012
2:11 pm
Kyle @2:03
Oh I don’t know- maybe because he has an opposition party whose primary goal is to make him a one term president rather than do whats best for the country? Surely you are not so blind as to not see this.
Ayn Rant
March 26th, 2012
2:12 pm
Kyle @ 1:28pm … Russia has a legitimate concern over missile battles and missile malfunctions over its major population centers, quite apart from the mistrust of US intentions.
But the major point is the utter uselessness of the concept of defense against ICBMs. If we spend a few billion on an anti-ICBM system that is capable of destroying 10 ICBMs, the enemy will simply spend a few million to build 11 more ICBMs .
The “Star Wars” idea was sold to frightened, unthinking Americans who believed that defense against Russian and Chinese ICBMs and MIRVs was possible. It’s numerically impossible, of course. The Russians and Chinese can add another 100 rounds to their enormous arsenals for the cost of our 10 missile “killers”. The Iranians can build 11 ICBMs before they launch an attack.
When Reagan initiated “Star Wars”, Soviet military experts, after rolling on the floor in laughter at the idiocy of the notion, promptly joined the charade. They constructed several strange towers around Moscow to fool US military “experts” into declaring that the Soviets had deployed an advanced anti-ICBM defense. Naturally, that accelerated the military spending frenzy of the Reagan administration.
Russia has settled its debts from the Cold War military spending, and moved on. We still haven’t paid off the Reagan-era debts, and we’re bogged down in domestic recession and foreign wars.
Kyle Wingfield
March 26th, 2012
2:13 pm
Solution @ 2:10: In zeal for grasping at straws, you apparently missed this line:
“President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”
He couldn’t have said it any more bluntly if he’d tried. But then again, diplomacy is the art of being blunt. Wait, what?
This Is A Solution Looking For A Problem (Flexibility vs Cave) Huh?
March 26th, 2012
2:14 pm
@MarkV
March 26th, 2012
2:09 pm
saywhat? @ 2:02 pm
Kyle may not have libeled the president, but he certainly insulted him and every rational person of this country.
******************************************************************************
I am very INSULTED.
They don’t have to like or agree with the President, but they don’t have to LIE on him either.
Some people will STOOP to any level to bring down this president.
But no weapon formed against him shall PROSPER.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
March 26th, 2012
2:14 pm
“If Russia had put a “defense” system in Canada, Mexico and Cuba, we would be on the brink of war right now (or I would be campaigning against Obama)”
Neither intended to be factual statements.
Junior Samples
March 26th, 2012
2:14 pm
Since Reagan rose taxes after he was elected, he caved. Right?
Kyle Wingfield
March 26th, 2012
2:14 pm
saywhat: So he doesn’t want to announce and defend his intentions publicly because this is an election year?
Isn’t that the whole point here??
Kyle Wingfield
March 26th, 2012
2:16 pm
Junior: You mean when he “rose taxes” by cutting all the income-tax rates?
Kyle Wingfield
March 26th, 2012
2:18 pm
I note that we are two hours into this discussion, and not one person has offered even a single alternative to my explanation — just deflection about hurting Russia’s feelings, libeling a person who can’t be libeled, insulting the president’s supporters…
MarkV
March 26th, 2012
2:18 pm
There is any number of conditions in negotiation with a foreign country, for which flexibility is important. That is what negotiation is about; reaching a decision that is acceptable to both sides. What Kyle has done is a clear insult of the President, because he has suggested that President Obama would take a position that was harmful to his country if he had the flexibility provided by a reelection. That is an insult, and no weaseling by Kyle now can take it back.
Kyle Wingfield
March 26th, 2012
2:19 pm
MarkV: You keep accusing me of trying to “take it back.” When did I allegedly do that?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
March 26th, 2012
2:20 pm
Reading all these comments from the libs on here reminds me of the old Warner Bros. cartoons where the coyote would find himself over the edge of a cliff and he would turnaround and try to run in mid-air to get back on solid ground.
How’d that work out for him?
Jefferson
March 26th, 2012
2:22 pm
FICA is not a tax I guess.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
March 26th, 2012
2:23 pm
“What Kyle has done is a clear insult of the President, because he has suggested that President Obama would take a position that was harmful to his country if he had the flexibility provided by a reelection.”
Either that, or he’s provided a pretty damned good assessment of this current Disaster-in-Chief’s intentions following his potential re-election.
And as Kyle has pointed out REPEATEDLY, none of you Obama apologists have come up with an alternative to Kyle’s opinion, just whining and moaning.
MarkV
March 26th, 2012
2:25 pm
Kyle,
If you are so keen on others suggesting an alternative scenario, why don’t you start by suggesting yours. You have not presented anything yet, except the words “cave in.” So tell us how President Obama will “cave in,” what is he going to give up, and your evidence for it. It is easy to insult by inference, so put up now.
Jefferson
March 26th, 2012
2:25 pm
I question the intentions, I doubt any of you woke up today worried about Russia