Last week President George W. Bush attended the opening of the Olympics in Beijing, China, the first American President to attend outside his own country. Presumptive GOP nominee Senator John S. McCain (R-AZ) stated that he would not have attended the opening ceremonies if he were President. Presumptive Democratic nominee Senator Barack H. Obama (D-IL) said he and McCain were in agreement on the issue. He would not have attended either.
So what should President Bush have done? Should he be there?
As I see it, the President had three choices. He could have boycotted the Olympics, à la Jimmy Carter in Moscow in 1980. He could have gone and said nothing. Despite the view of the majority of heads of state currently in Beijing for the Games that China's record in Burma and Tibet is unacceptable, they are saying nothing. The most common comment we heard was, "We don't want to mix politics with the Games." The final option was to do what Bush did. He could make a definitive statement on human rights while attending the Olympics.
I think the President did the right thing. Had he boycotted the Olympics, it would have had little effect on the Olympics but it might have been devastating to our athletes. Had he gone to Beijing and said nothing, not only would it have been inconsistent with the President's long record on human rights and freedoms, but the people of Burma and Tibet and the victims of China's one-child policy would have felt abandoned, perhaps even betrayed.
At first I was inclined to think that Senators Obama and McCain were correct. But having seen what Bush did, I changed my mind.
If Bush had done what he promised in 2000 - that is, no nation building - he would go down in history as perhaps the greatest President since George Washington. As it is, he will be judged on the outcome of two wars, and that outcome is mostly out of his control.