So, this article mentions that several European heads of state are going to boycott the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in protest of China's heavy-handed crackdown on Tibetan freedom demonstrations.
Our president remains committed to go, caught in a pickle of brinkmanship that he, and most of the current candidates, is (are) ill-suited to play. If he does not go, he sends a message that America stands for freedom, supports Tibetan independence (or at least semi-autonomy), and has the courage to act. He also runs the great risk of really really pissing off the Chinese, causing them to react in that oh-so-not-subtle way that the Chinese do (a couple of years down the road). The Russians, concerned about their own separatists problems might also take umbrage at the President's support should he not go.
If he goes, he is cowtowing to trade, business, and Chinese interests. We (not just he) will be seen as weak and nervous about maintaining good relations with our most-favored trading partner.
My question is this, knowing what it does about Chinese human rights violations, TIANANMEN SQUARE (1989), and their craving to be seen as a world power, how in the hell did the Olympic Committee award the Games to China? Seriously! The Olympic Games are about peace, not jingoism. We've set ourselves up for a repeat of the '36 Games; I bet there were as many bribes as the Salt Lake Games.