Breaking: Obama to Bush - Boycott Ceremonies If China Doesn't Consider Tibet and Darfur

[malik flavors]

Here is Obama's full statement:

"If the Chinese do not take steps to help stop the genocide in Darfur and to respect the dignity, security, and human rights of the Tibetan people, then the President should boycott the opening ceremonies. As I have communicated in public and to the President, it is past time for China to respect the human rights of the Tibetan people, to allow foreign journalists and diplomats access to the region, and to engage the Dalai Lama in meaningful talks about the future of Tibet. I am also deeply concerned about China's failure to support efforts to halt the genocide in Darfur. Regarding the Beijing Olympics this summer, a boycott of the opening ceremonies should be firmly on the table, but this decision should be made closer to the Games."

A bit more measured and thoughtful than Sen. Clinton's statement. I think a big part of him believes that the Olympics is a time to unite the world despite our differences, so he's not as cut and dry as Hillary is. This a difference I've noticed about them for a while now, Hillary is more of a "right now," type and Obama is more of a "let's think about this" type. Not saying one is better than the other, it's just something I've noticed.

I'm glad that he included Darfur in his statement. That's something that's been a little left out of this conversation.

Here's an article on the statement:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/obama-says-bush.html

[Cant trust em]

1. I think that Clinton came up with this first

I'm not sure if I'm down for it or not. If GWB protests someone else's human rights violations it would seem like the height of hypocrisy. Where does Bush get the moral high ground to do anything?

[OzarkDem]

60. Obama would be lost w/o Clinton

to show him how to lead and govern.

Its what I fear most about an Obama presidency. Without experience or know-how, he would be a willing puppet.

[Cant trust em]

67. We might have someone who bent to the will of the right wing

like Clinton did when she voted for the IWR.

[redqueen]

68. Actually that would be Pelosi, would it not?

[Cant trust em]

69. I stand corrected.

The first story I see of the speaker mentioning this is on April 1. Clinton's is April 7.

See what happens when I try to throw Clinton a bone? It winds up being on factually shaky ground.

[redqueen]

70. Hahahahahahaha

Nah... too easy...

:hi:

[leftofcool]

2. Fence sitting

[GarbagemanLB]

4. No, it is a more nuanced and thoughtful approach.

[leftofcool]

9. horseshit

[Zachstar]

12. When you say crap like that you fail.

Next time be descriptive if you want to make a point.

[thevoiceofreason]

26. Yes she is.

[rodeodance]

40. BHO is horseshit. I can play your stupid game also.

[thevoiceofreason]

56. OK. I'll play your bullshit game. Hill eats horseshit because she believes her lobbiest staffers

Kiss off.

[rodeodance]

11. ha ha --you folks crack me up. BHO is following the leader--Sen. Clinton. simple as that.

[thevoiceofreason]

27. Clinton couldn't lead a starving man to a plate of pork chops.

She has zero leadership skills.

[elehhhhna]

30. zero, hell! more like negative!

[rodeodance]

35. wonder why obama followers her lead so often.

[thevoiceofreason]

54. Doan know. Maybeee beecuz of thee innernets

[SunsetDreams]

16. exactly....it's about the bigger picture.

[rodeodance]

39. tell me why--you are just parroting the OP. How was it so?

[GarbagemanLB]

45. Symbolism is important to China. Not showing up for the opening ceremonies should be an option

LEFT ON THE TABLE, but not promised, in order to push China towards fixing some of its problems. As much as I hate to say it, China has a lot more importance to US than WE do to THEM.

[rodeodance]

51. I saw Lehrer news hour--China is having a tizzy over the lost $$ at

thought of boycott from US--this was last night when Hillary
made her statement. She got the ball rolling.

"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.

"These events underscore why I believe the Bush administration has been wrong to downplay human rights in its policy towards China. At this time, and in light of recent events, I believe President Bush should not plan on attending the opening ceremonies in Beijing, absent major changes by the Chinese government."

-hillary clinton, two days ago

[babylonsister]

5. No, thoughtful vs. knee-jerk. nt

[rodeodance]

41. How so?--you just repeated what the OP said.

[damonm]

22. Thanks for the black & white certitude there, W....

[Joanne98]

3. YAY!

[AllentownJake]

6. The olympics

Aren't till August....I don't understand the rush to Boycot the opening ceremony. Its not like this is happening next week. Theres time to put pressure on them and threat a boycot..announcing one early kind of screws that up IMO

[mckeown1128]

8. The rush is that Hillary is trying to win the nomination.

she was hoping Obama wouldn't take a stand because Chicago is trying to get the 2012 Olympics.. it's all political games.

[AllentownJake]

19. Did not know that

Perfectly explains why 4 months before anyone is attending the event we need to announce we aren't attending.

[SunsetDreams]

7. The difference is...judgement

He chooses to weigh carefully the options and consequences of a decision, rather than fly at the seat of the pants.

His answer was broad and not vague. He also, by sending this measured response, is sending a message to China, that it has the opportunity here to make a wrong, right. If it chooses not to do so, then there are consequences. The fact is, our economy is wrapped up in China right now, thanks to Bush. We are financially enbolden to them, due to hefty loans. We have to weigh our options here carefully.
If China chooses to not do something about their situation, then no one can say we didn't warn them first. It's called diplomacy.

[anonymous171]

10. He topped Clinton. lol

[rodeodance]

13. you folks will say anything. Its really "I agree with hillary" again. ha ha

[anonymous171]

14. +darfur. So he topped her.

[Crooked Moon]

31. pick up a paper...

"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.

"These events underscore why I believe the Bush administration has been wrong to downplay human rights in its policy towards China. At this time, and in light of recent events, I believe President Bush should not plan on attending the opening ceremonies in Beijing, absent major changes by the Chinese government."

-hillary clinton, two days ago

[tekisui]

15. You should be happy that he supports Hillary's call to boycott.

[rodeodance]

37. I really am---was responding to the petty Obama fans comments.

[Cant trust em]

23. Whoops. I almost fell into your trap.

I will not...

[OzarkDem]

61. You mean he copied her

:eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

17. I disagree with both positions.....

because I don't believe "symbolism" actions work as much as economic honesty. Unless we can do something instead of joining in with the chorus, little will be settled in this way.

South Africa didn't move from its position of apartheid till an economic boycott made them change their mind.

I'm finding that this approach to our bankers to be of little comfort.

Maybe if we can end the war and stop borrowing from China, we could actually show that we mean what we say.

[Cant trust em]

24. Also, we have no moral high ground

How can a country that is currently engaged in an illegal occupation talk about some other country's human rights violations?

[FrenchieCat]

28. That was another point that I forgot to make........

but one which is as powerful as the others.

But I don't have to agree with everything my candidate does. At least he included Darfur, which is actually a more life or death proposition.

[Cant trust em]

49. Obama has some high ground. He was against this from the beginning.

He's still funding it, but him being between a rock and a hard place earns him some respect.

But what is George going to do? He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If he goes to the Olympics, he doesn't care about human rights violations. If he does go it's a world stage to be called a hypocrite. It'll be a fun catch 22 for us to watch.

[Cosmocat]

63. Bingo ...

I wasn't surprised when Hill came out with this, a little disappointed that Obama has started up on it ...

As noted, we aren't so morally outraged that we won't let them take on hundreds of billions of our debt ...

[PetraPooh]

18. This is a discouraging remark and tactic, makes us a hypocritical country.

I do not agree with Obama on this and I'm sad he allowed himself to be forced into taking a stand today. Had he decided to take a stand, I was so hoping he would have at least mentioned the hypocrisy of the current USA while condemning China's human rights issues.

[AllentownJake]

20. This entire boycott

The opening ceremonies by world leaders is stupid. If they want to make a statement tell the teams they can't march in the parade of nations. That way the athletes still get to compete but there is an actual symbolic show that people are upset with China.

[C_U_L8R]

36. Wouldn't a courageous President

actually go to China and take a stand on the issue.

All this apology and "I'm gonna stay home" bluster seems like
a kindergartener's guide to foreign affairs. Or at least it's the Hillary way.

[tishaLA]

48. That's entirely correct

the idea that a nation with secret prisons, that permits torture, that does rendition, can call China on its human rights violations strikes me as chutzpah in the extreme. What's worse is that we have hitched out economic wagon to China's abominable labor practices and have allowed our debt to them to balloon to such an extent that any lip service we pay to their human rights violations cannot be regarded with any credibility whatsoever.

[lostnotforgotten]

21. And What Should China Boycott For Our War Crimes Re. John Yoo?

eom

[malik flavors]

25. Obama isn't demanding that we boycott. He's saying if China doesn't take steps...

to bettering their relationships we should consider boycotting. And he's saying once we get closer to the games we should decide what to do depending on how things work out.

He's suggesting we try to work things out, not just a simple "No, we won't take part in the ceremonies."

[SunsetDreams]

32. exactly Malik nt

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

44. Seems a well reasoned response. Quite different from the Hyper anal

responses of the past.

[MercutioATC]

29. I liked the idea another DUer had. Have our athletes enter with the Tibetan flag.

It's still only a statement, but I like it.

[Evergreen Emerald]

33. He had to wait until the public fallout from Clinton's announcement

More proof of his incompetence. He is just not Presidential material.

[rodeodance]

42. Right. --recall the debate: BHO: I agree with Hillary

[FarCenter]

34. We can't afford to send Air Force One and his entourage

Stay home. We can no longer afford the millions it costs to send Bush and about 500 minions to a sporting events.

Besides, the Chinese would probably boo him out of the stadium.

[Skip Intro]

38. To paraphrase Obama: "PRESENT!"

...:rofl:

[stillcool]

50. Really hard for some people to understand!

Isn't it?

‘Present’ Perfect
By ABNER J. MIKVA
Published: February 16, 2008

SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON should probably be forgiven for not remembering the course on the state Constitution that she would have had to take as an eighth grader in Illinois. But had she remembered it, she would have known that Senator Barack Obama was not ducking his responsibility in the Illinois Senate when he voted “present” on many issues.

Unlike Congress and the legislatures of most other states, each chamber of the Illinois Legislature requires a “constitutional majority” to pass a bill. The state Senate has 59 members, so it takes 30 affirmative votes. This makes a “present” vote the same as a no. If a bill receives 29 votes, but the rest of the senators vote “present,” it fails.

In Congress, in contrast, a bill can pass in either the House or the Senate as long as more people vote for it than against it. If 10 people vote in favor and nine against, and the rest either vote “present” or don’t vote at all, the bill passes. It can actually pass with just one vote, as long as no one votes no.

In the Illinois Senate, there can be strategic reasons for voting “present” rather than simply no. A member might approve the intent of legislation, but not its scope or the way it has been drafted. A “present” vote can send a signal to a bill’s sponsors that the legislator might support an amended version. Voting “present” can also be a way to exercise fiscal restraint, without opposing the subject of the bill.
---------------------------

It never occurred to me or to any of my critics that I was ducking responsibility for a making a decision. Mr. Obama was an outspoken member of the Illinois Senate, and not someone known for dodging questions, whether they were on ethics, police responsibility, women’s choice or any other hot-button issue.

Even if Senator Clinton does not remember the constitutional majority requirement in Illinois, one of her advisers might have explained it to her. When I was White House counsel, President Clinton frequently reminded me that he had taught constitutional law before he ran for public office. I would hope that he would assume that another constitutional scholar — Barack Obama — would be aware of his voting responsibilities as a state legislator.

Abner J. Mikva has been an Illinois state legislator, a United States congressman, a federal judge and, from 1994 to 1995, White House counsel. He now directs the Mandel Legal Aid Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/opinion/16mikva.html?ex=1360818000&en=9417ee6115534086&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[2rth2pwr]

43. Can Obama make a decision? On anything?

[GarbagemanLB]

46. I agree! We need another Bush! The world is black and white! No nuance! No complexity! Simplistic!

:rofl:

[malik flavors]

52. Thank You. We need a careful thinker in the White House again.

[Orsino]

53. But also one who will present a consistent face to the world.

It's not enough to urge boycotting a ceremony, though I'm okay with that ploy. President Obama would have to follow up with diplomatic and even economic pressure in every venue--and, of course, end the flagrant abuses America perpetrates on every continent.

[Hippo_Tron]

47. This is just as dumb as when Hillary suggested it

A large amount of nations boycotting the entire games might and I emphasize MIGHT convince China to change their behavior.

Boycotting the opening ceremony won't do anything.

[demasiado]

55. China should leave Tibetans alone

Human rights violations should automatically disqualify a country from participating in Olympics, IMO.

[samsingh]

57. Kick

[DemVet]

58. Sports and Politics should be seperate.

Sorry, but that's how I feel. We shouldn't penalize OUR athletes over something China did.

If this wasn't an Olympics year in China, we'd all be discussing other avenues to deal with China.

Let's go down that road.

[WinkyDink]

59. Disagree. The Olympics are nothing BUT politics for the home country.

Why do you think China was AWARDED the Olympics?
Why do you think China just imprisoned a major dissident, for 2 1/2 years?

The most evil "separation" was when Avery Brundage "let the games" continue after the slaughter at Munich. Shameful disgusting pandering, NOT to the athletes. Please. This is TELEVISION we're talking about.
Pandering to SPONSORS. To $$$$$.

THAT is what China is doing, what our extra-national companies are counting on, what our government must kow-tow to.

China OWNS us. Thus, calls for boycotts of only the Opening Ceremony, not the entire Olympics.

[quantass]

62. Obama and Clinton are BOTH right. Here's Why ......

I believe the differences are Obama first wants to give China a chance to deal with the issue then if not satisfactory he recommends boycotting the "opening ceremonies" but not the whole games. Whereas Clinton says boycott everything now without giving China a chance.

I think Obama has it right to give China a chance to recitfy the situation now that a superpower has spoken and if the deadline isnt met Clinton's complete boycott of the games should be insitituted rather than just the opening ceremonies. That sucks for all the american athletes.

It has been said that the Olympics are about uniting the world but I dunno. To me it seems more competitive, about who has the best athletes and therefore the best society. A global advertisement if you will. I'm not saying the Olympics is a divisive tool only that when America wins 70% of the games my thoughts are "geez we suck as Canadians" and "damn what the hell is in their drinking water". :>

So from my perspective both candidates have the proper piece of the puzzle. Obama's seems more thoughtful whereas Clinton seems more situational.

[marshall]

64. If it's worth a boycott then boycott the whole damn thing

Not a half ass boycott. If Tibet and Darfur mean anything then it's time to call for an all out boycott.

[WinkyDink]

65. China is too financially powerful.

[marshall]

66. So was the USSR in 1980 and that didn't stop Carter

I wonder if that was the beginning of the end for the Soviet Union?