Post Hoc Criticism of Obama's Copenhagen Trip Justified

It would be easy to read too much into the rejection of Chicago as the site of the 2016 Summer Olympics despite the president's personal lobbying junket to Copenhagen in order to plead the city's case before a meeting of the International Olympic Committee (IOC).

But neither should the president get a pass or an "A" for effort -- or any other spin one wishes to put on the decision by the IOC to bypass Chicago as host for the games.

In a word, this is a disaster for the president.

"If he goes and does not bring home the Olympics, it's going to be kind of a blow for him on the international stage where he is immensely popular, which is really the reason why they think it will help the bid for him to go," said Kenneth Vogel, a senior reporter for Politico.

He placed the prestige of his presidency directly on the line and failed. That's the bottom line. He gambled with the one thing no president should ever gamble with unless the stakes are much higher than his hometown getting the Olympic games.

What stakes would have justified such a gamble? Jimmy Carter gambled that he could bring Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin to Camp David and hash out a peace deal. The odds were against it. It was a huge gamble and Carter, to his credit, worked tirelessly, shuffling back and forth between the two antagonists' cabins (they refused to meet in the same room), never letting up until he had a deal.

Ronald Reagan's gamble in Reykjavik, Iceland, where he sought to make huge cuts in nuclear weapons while meeting with Gorbachev, did not turn out as well. When Gorbachev rejected the plan because Reagan would not give up SDI, the Gipper was rightly criticized for it.

Presidential visits are staged down to the last detail. If a treaty is to be signed, experts work for weeks prior to the president's trip to make sure there are no last-minute hitches. Nothing is left to chance.

With Obama's visit to Copenhagen, everything was left to chance. We didn't know that at the time he announced it, however. There were many observers who believed the president wouldn't make the trip unless he had been given private assurances that his presence would put Chicago over the top.

Given the history of the IOC, such a scenario is not beyond the realm of the impossible. There are few more corrupt international organizations than the cynics who run the "Olympic movement." With billions of dollars at stake, Chicago wouldn't be the first city told one thing while the committee went off and did something else. The selection process over the last two decades has been rife with payoff scandals and illegal perks given to IOC members by host cities. Let's just say that it shouldn''t surprise anyone if Obama was double-crossed.

Absence any evidence to the contrary, we must assume that the president was fully aware of the gamble he was taking. Even Politico's resident Obama cheerleader Ben Smith had to admit the obvious:

There's a reason the president is rarely dispatched to a summit whose outcome is uncertain.

And Chicago's elimination in the first round of voting has to raise questions about whether the White House was getting accurate information about how competitive this was from Chicago's Olympics organizers.

The White House staked, and lost, some prestige on that one.