Obama takes heat for skipping Berlin Wall anniversary - http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/06/obama-takes-heat-for-skipping-berlin-wall-anniversary/#more-76799

Summary




      This Monday, November 9th 2009 Germany will be celebrating the 20th anniversary of the fall of Berlin Wall. President Obama was expected to go to the commemoration, but due to an upcoming 10 day trip to Asia, he and his team have decided it is better for him to prepare for what is to be his most important trip this year. During his trip he is expected to visit Japan, Singapore, China and South Korea, to discuss trade, and other economic issues. This trip is also significant because he will get a chance to talk to Chinese officials, who are currently America's 2nd largest trading partner, and the largest holder of U.S government debts. Despite it's importance many people, especially Republic party representatives, and their supporters are outraged.

Rush Limbaugh said, "This is unprecedented...An American president not showing up at one of the most famous sites for the destruction of tyranny and the outbreak of freedom? Being invited by the chancellor, the leader of Germany, and not going?"

The Der Spiegel, a major German newspaper headline also stated, "Barack is too busy".

Despite the controversy, the President said Germany "has become the centerpiece for an extraordinarily strong European Union."

He also invited Germany's chancellor, Angela Markey, to the White House this past Tuesday.



Opinion
       In my opinion, the article only showed the view of those in opposition of President Obama's decision, and the one person who supported him, Robert Gibbs, is part of the White House staff, and would have obvious preference to the President's decision. Also, the article failed to mention just how important his trip to Asia is to America's economic well-being. If one were not to search what his trip to Asia entitled, they would think that he was just skipping a very important event in not only Germany's history, but America's history as well. Overall, I believe the article was biased towards the Republican view on the matter, and did not show the full scope of the matter.