Clinton Wants Bush To Boycott Olympic Opening Ceremonies

WASHINGTON — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday called on President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies for the Olympic games in Beijing, a fresh sign that politics, not sports, may take center stage at the summer games.

The Democratic presidential candidate said a boycott would underscore U.S. concerns about recent unrest in Tibet and questions about China's relationship with Sudan.

"The violent clashes in Tibet and the failure of the Chinese government to use its full leverage with Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur are opportunities for presidential leadership," she said, charging the Bush administration "has been wrong to downplay human rights in its policy towards China."

She said Bush should not plan on attending the ceremonies "absent major changes by the Chinese government."

Her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama, recently said he was conflicted about whether the U.S. should fully participate.

Bush has said he will attend the Olympics because it is a sporting event, not a political event.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto told reporters Monday that Bush's position had not changed, nor had the administration's concerns about China's human rights record.

"We have never been afraid to express those views either directly by the president or the president's senior advisers when they travel to China and publicly," Fratto said.

Story continues below

advertisement

Obama issued a statement late Monday saying he has been "deeply disturbed by the recent events in Tibet, and have communicated my concerns in public and to President Bush," adding that if China does not take quick steps to respect rights and freedoms in Tibet, "there should be consequences."

The political debate over China's hosting role is rapidly overtaking the sports-themed torch ceremonies around the globe.

In Paris on Monday, organizers canceled the final leg of the traditional torch run through the city. In the face of chaotic protests and repeated attempts to douse the torch, organizers snuffed out the flame and put the torch aboard a bus in a humiliating concession to protesters decrying China's human rights record.

At least two activists got almost an arm's length away before they were seized by police. Another protester threw water at the torch but failed to put it out before being taken away.

The disturbances in Paris followed similar efforts in London on Sunday, where the torch was run through another gauntlet of protesters.

Clinton's announcement comes as her campaign tries to recover from jettisoning its chief campaign strategist this weekend for his involvement with a U.S.-Colombia free trade deal she opposes.

Rival Obama said in a TV interview earlier this month that he was "of two minds" when it came to full U.S. participation in the Olympics.

"On the one hand, I think that what has happened in Tibet, China's support for the Sudanese government in Darfur, is a real problem," he said, before adding: "I am hesitant to make the Olympics a site of political protest because I think it's partly about bringing the world together."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, among other U.S. lawmakers, has suggested Bush should consider staying away from the opening ceremonies following China's crackdown on protesters in Tibet.

___

Associated Press writer Deb Riechmann contributed to this report.

Comments

[Crozier]

Hypocrisy.­..your name is Clinton. This is an attempt to corner Obama who understands what you are trying to triangulate.

The People's Republic of China owns Trillions of Debt of the United States of America. One attempt to devaluate the Yuan at the expense of the US dollar could make the Dow bounce down 400 points. Just 9 in lieu of 10 to 1 would again acheive that outcome.

US Debt is owned by the economic competitors and political enemies of the United States. In 1980, the boycott of the Olympics of Moscow by President Carter did much politically and little on the economic front. Different times. The Neocons came into power in 1981, otherwise the economic downturn would have occurred much sooner....

[argent1]

it's only a half trillion, so far

[mouselion]

It's not like there wasn't a voice in America saying, "Don't!".

[clbrune]

In other words, bow to your creditor, sell your moral integrity, compromise for money, and take no stand that carries risk?

I bet if Obama had made the same statement, you'd be all for it ("what an inspiration!!")

[RThM]

Sounds good but what do all these sudden little posturings mean? I think we're probably seeing the emergence of Hillary Clinton's new marketing strategy before April 22. Thursday she's against poverty. (I've had a dream, too.) Then she's fighting breast cancer. ("How can you be against ME when I'm against that? Shame on you Obama.") Today she's against the opening cermonies. ("I've alway wanted to Save Tibet. I wasn't named Hillary for nothing.") You have to give her credit, though. She does knows cynical use of emotional issues to the hilt. Penn is really her political love child. Expect to see a flurry of these issues to keep the press preoccupied. Like when she wouldn't announce a New York Senate campaign but said she was on a listening campaign to hear call of the people. Totally desinged to use up all the oxygen and deny legitimate native candidates the chance to start raising funds.

[argent1]

Obama running for president since 2004 -- using all his energies to get there instead of doing any real work. Go ahead and link me up with those phony pages of accomplishment.

[RThM]

It's typical of Clinton apologists that they merely flip any argument over on its back, "He's the liar. He's the phony. Where are HIS accomplishments?" Sigh.

[weareas1]

This is absolute proof that Hillary knows she has no chance of becoming the US President. No President, or candidate who has a serious chance of becoming President, would ever consider boycotting the Olympics a valid or fruitful stand to take. Sorry, folks, that's reality. We absoultely need to stay on good diplomatic and trade terms with China. Clinton knows this, and she knows that since she is definitelyl not going to be president, she can risk taking this confrontational position.

She's not, however, being confrontational with the Chinese. That's just a bunch of smoke. She's being confrontational, as usual, with Barack Obama. who, because he is on the very brink of becong President, cannot possibly take the boycott China position. It's a low-risk move on her part that (in her estimation) will make Barack look bad, especially after her surrogates get done with their spinning gyrations.

Hillary, we (the American people) are not as dumb as you and your people continue to think we are. Barack Obama is the human rights candidate. He'll make more of a difference in the world regarding human rights than you could ever imagine.

[factanonverba]

She is not suggesting a boycott of the Olympics, she is suggesting that Bush not attend the Opening Ceremonies. Get your facts straight.

[argent1]

Yes he'll send troops in to free Darfur, and to free Tibet. And he'll use his community organizing skills to finally make peace between Palestein and Israel. He'll bring us all together on global this and global that and we won't have any fear left in us, then Jesus will come down riding in a hybrid cadillac with Rev. Wright driving and they'll drive to Iraq and give out sugar candies to all the poor along the way. And when he's done with that he'll fly on the wings of eagles back to Washington and paint the White House purple, and we will all paint our houses purple. Hold your breath a little longer an you will turn purple too!

[lastams]

Yea, like Bush cares about civil rights.

[DebofMD]

Can someone please explain that billboard of Hillary in China? Nice billboard but what the heck is it doing there?

Obama '08

[bagelmaven]

Oh sure just what we need to do, aggravate China which holds trillions of our debt so that they can bring down our economy and our nation with it. As much as I would like to see Tibet free, PAHLEESE can't we take the political out of the lousy Olympic games? It's RIDICULOUS. My goodness can't we all just get along? If one wants to protest I have a great unnecessary, illegal and immoral war in Iraq for ya. Is the US going to direct a world moral policy after this latest insanity?

[factanonverba]

So appeasement is the tact to take?

Ludicrous.

[clbrune]

"can't we all just get along?"

Tell that to Tibet.

See, this move is what sets Clinton above Obama. She's savvy enough to know we can't boycott the Olympics, but for Bush to sit out the opening ceremonies it would send a real political message.

Smart, experienced.

[TheDoc]

I don't see why Bush would boycott the ceremonies. He's a lameduck and if you think he somehow finally wants to make some moral statement you've obviously not watched his lack of morals for the last four years. I do applaud Clinton for her statement though, but Pelosi a head of the party had already stated this earlier. And this "somewhat gutsy" statement won't get the Penn story off Clinton's back.

I've created a prediction market regarding whether Bush will attend the opening ceremonies of the Olympics located here:

http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/Will_US_President_George_Bush_attend_the_opening_ceremonies_of_the_2008_Summer_Olympics_5122/view

Have your say!

[ddlrid]

What a GREAT photo of Hillary on that billboard in China! Is that an Olympic ad?

[pecadillosam]

The good 'ol USA continues to sanction and defend the following human rights violations:

1) The USA imprisons people indefinitely with no charges filed, under the auspices that they are "terrorists". These detainees have never had a day in court, a suspension of provisions of the U.S. Constitution, the American standard since the founding of the country more than 230 years ago. The detainees are held in what amounts to fenced in, open air dog kennels (with a roof) with no toilets at the Guantanamo Bay facility.

2) The USA tortures selected detainees (who have never had a day in court, and who have never been found guilty of any charges) using techniques specifically outlawed first during the Spanish-American war, and again during the Geneva Conventions after World War II. Many detainees subjected to these torture techniques have lost their will to live during the six-plus years they have endured in detention, and have to be force-fed daily to keep them alive.

3) The USA flies (using private corporate jets) selected detainees, who have never had a day in court, to various countries in the world who condone torture to be tortured. The program is called, "extraordinary rendition".

[nellie]

Boycotting the opening ceremonies­—I'm not sure this is a political statement or not. It seems rather safe and uncontroversial.

After our boycott of the Olympics in 1980, I have to admit to mixed feelings about who is hurt by such an action. Did we have an affect on Soviet policy? Did we make any statement that wasn't already clear in our politics? Or did we merely punish athletes who had trained for years? It seems to me that if we want to make a real statement about China's policies, there's a better way to do it. Favorite nation status comes to mind....

[argent1]

1980 encouraged the Mujahadin -- the Bin laden foolks who take credit for ousting the USSR out of Afghanistan and eventually causing their demise. This emboldened Bin Laden and he has become revered in the parts of the world we understand to be our enemies. So short term effect for the 1980 boycott good, longer term effect bad, final outcome of effect maybe 75 years from now -- plan on living that long?
Hitler used the Olympics to bolster his Arian Nation 3rd Reich schemes (outdone by our black athletes, especially Jesse Owens and Joe Louis -- of course in effect Jesse and Joe and the rest of the African Ameican crew lived with Jim Crow.
Besides the Olympics is merely a leftover deposit of the super-rich from the guilded age who thought of themselves as Olympian Gods and needed sport to be entertained by.

[slow2]

One would think, wrongly, that Senator Clinton's mind would be occupied with getting the troops out of Iraq.

[argent1]

that might take a super duper computer to figure that out, not a super duper primary

[clbrune]

Gee, it looks like Clinton can actually come up with intelligent political strategies even while she campaigns. That shows talent.

Of course, I'm sure Obama will issue a press release once he copies her idea.

[jdm58]

The willingness of ANY candidate to take a firm stand on such a volatile issue should be commended. If more of our politicians were willing to actually STAND FOR something, instead of triangulating or posturing or giving 1/2 answers in order not to offend, then we would be in far better shape as a nation. If Obama doesn't want to support a boycott of the opening ceremonies (something that was suggested by our European allies, not the U.S.) so be it. If Bush choses to ignore the suggestions of Congress to do so, so be it (wouldn't it be funny if he was the only dignitary there?). But isn't it refreshing to hear someone take a risk and actually be clear about where they stand on an issue for a change, even if it might not be popular? Whether you like Hillary or not, you've got to admit, she's got guts.

[argent1]

I'll have the fried Clinton with Obama sauce, a Bush roll and a side of McCain, can I pick it up at Walmart?

Ah so! Fortune cookie say -- Yankee beware of footsteps in brown mud is not mud.

Lucky numbers: 2005, and 269

[kellygrrrl]

he can't boycott - China owns our sorry butts!

[XYZguy]

I don't quite understand the logic behind a boycott.

Let's not forget that Bush has committed far more grave human rights abuses than the Chinese: Iraq (1 million dead and counting), Somalia (US-sponsored invasion/m­assacres), Gitmo, etc. The Europeans have also bloodied their hands by directly supporting these crimes or at the very least are complicit (according to the logic of those demanding a boycott) as their leaders haven't boycotted the US in any way nor have their citizens demanded a boycott.

When do you think the boycott-Ch­ina-Olympi­cs crowd will demand that their leaders boycott American-hosted conference­s/meetings­? And why do I get the feeling that if the roles were reversed (China being responsible for Iraq, etc. and the US for the oppression of Tibet) that most here would instead be demanding that the US (hosting the Olympics in this scenario) dis-invite the leader of China (a War Criminal)?

Please don't let these comments interrupt your tirade of hypocrisy.

[argent1]

Actually with the price of gas and oil and the dollar limping along, and the US housing and our preoccupation with needing to spend our way into oblivion, including the need for enough armaments to fend off the vengence of our past [sins (since 1619!)] -- There's no need for an overt jesture. Instead of being the world's security force we are now keystone cops.

[argent1]

So Obama is of 2 minds? is it Yin or Yang? Sweet or Sour? -- Tibet or to bet? Clinton beats him on this -- so who now has the judgement upperhand?

[FreedomLoverX]

2 minds is better than none, which you apparently have.

[argent1]

I have a half a mind to know you are upset over the news.