CNN’s Controversial Christopher Stevens Reporting…

In your twin must reads for the weekend, The Huffington Post’s Michael Calderone writes about CNN’s reporting in the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens…

Anderson Cooper revealed Friday night that CNN had found U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens’ personal journal following the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that killed him and acknowledged the network used the journal in its reporting without previously disclosing the source.

On Wednesday on his show, “Anderson Cooper 360,” Cooper told Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that “a source familiar with Ambassador Stevens’ thinking told us that in the months before his death he talked about being worried about the never-ending security threats that he was facing in Benghazi and specifically about the rise in Islamic extremism and growing al Qaeda presence.” The source, Cooper continued, “also mentioned [Stevens] being on an al Qaeda hit list.”

But what Cooper didn’t reveal at the time was that CNN’s sourcing was tied, at least partially, to Stevens’ thinking as written in his personal journal.

Meanwhile The Wall Street Journal’s Adam Entous and Keach Hagey write that CNN used Stevens’ journal notes against the wishes of his family…

CNN obtained a personal journal that belonged to the slain American ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and broadcast reports based on its contents against the wishes of the Stevens family, according to relatives and State Department officials who were asked to intervene by the family.

CNN obtained the journal in Benghazi, where Mr. Stevens and three other Americans were killed in an attack by militants on the American consulate in the city on Sept. 11. It wasn’t clear exactly how CNN obtained the ambassador’s writings.

The episode marks a side drama in the aftermath of the consulate siege and highlights questions news organizations can encounter when they come across evidence also being sought by law enforcement or other government officials. Personal material important to surviving relatives represents an even-more delicate and unusual dilemma.

Entous and Hagey got a response from CNN to this…

A spokesperson for CNN said the network didn’t report directly from the journal, but corroborated the information through other sources. Mr. Stevens’s purported concerns about his safety came as questions were raised by the Obama administration’s congressional critics and others about the adequacy of security in the area.

This is flimsy arguing by CNN. The network would have never known to look for corroborating information if it hadn’t had the journal in the first place. Everything that transpired, transpired because CNN was in possession of the journal.

And then there’s this kicker graph at the end of the Journal story…

Asked about how CNN handled the journal, Philippe Reines, a senior adviser to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said it took repeated prodding to get CNN to agree to return the journal.

We haven’t heard the last of this story.

77 Responses to “CNN’s Controversial Christopher Stevens Reporting…”

  1. Wow..that’s kinda creepy. The journal should have been turned over to the State Dept. unopened. Found information at a crime scene is not covered by the First Amendment.

  2. Conceivably they didn’t know it was from the consulate when opened.

    “Repeated prodding”…. am searching for a reasonable justification but so far I’m coming up with nada.

  3. I’m not going to comment on any thing but that if it is true that the Ambassador “talked about being worried about the never-ending security threats that he was facing in Benghazi and specifically about the rise in Islamic extremism and growing al Qaeda presence.” The source, Cooper continued, “also mentioned [Stevens] being on an al Qaeda hit list.”

    I can’t imagine how he agreed to be covered by so little security while he was at the consulate. I truly hope that it does not come to light that he asked for more security and was turned down. Can it get more awful for his family?

    I don’t care about the State Department and what happens there. If heads have to roll so be it.

  4. Though I find this unseemly, I guess I’m glad the information’s out. In the long run maybe the family will be too.

  5. If the first Ambassador to be murdered in thirty years happened under a GWB administration, the press scrutiny would have been extreme. The fact that all three network nightly news programs have kept skepticism of Obama’s group to a bare minimum is really quite disgraceful.

  6. I’m with Joe on this. Evidence found at the scene a crime should have been turned over immediately. End of story. CNN’s excuses about protecting the family just don’t wash. The family and state dept sound pissed and rightly so.

  7. That was vile. Certainly not worthy of the reputation that CNN likes to cultivate for itself.

  8. “Obama’s group”

    ^^ What? Obama was behind this attack?

  9. @fritz

    Can you be honest, just for a second, and tell me if you make comments like because you’re actually confused, or because it’s the best way to distract from legitimate concerns you feel uncomfortable speaking about?


  10. Obama’s “group” would be his administration’s people responsible for what is looking like the mother of all security clusterf*cks.

  11. “CNN’s excuses about protecting the family just don’t wash.”

    fritz: I don’t see where that statement was made by CNN.

    Please tell me where you got that information.

  12. Like on many occasions I have no idea what Larry is referring to. I doubt even he thinks Obama had anything to do with the attack. I do think he would believe Obama was behind some kind of MSM media conspiracy to cover up the fact it was a terrorist attack – why i don’t know.

    When he refers to “Obama’s group” is he referring to his campaign, his advisers, his administration, Muslims, the MSM media -who?

  13. Turns out witnesses are saying ‘that there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Instead, they say, it came under planned attack by over 100 heavily armed men. Then four hours later the safe house was attacked where the ambassador was killed. Reports of gruesome things done to his body are circulating. The ex-Navy Seal questioned the loyalty of the force hired by the State Dept. to protect the Americans just before he was killed. NONE of the has any resemblance to what we heard from the Obama admin for ten days.

  14. Lies, lies, lies. The attacks had nothing to do with al Qaeda or Islamic extremism; they were entirely based on the movie. Remember? 0bambi, Hillary and Susan Rice, et al all told us this last week! God knows THEY wouldn’t lie! /s

  15. I knew about the heavily armed force attacking in waves and from multiple directions, that there was no real anti-American protest, and that the safe house had been compromised by last Tuesday, which means the White House knew about it. Meanwhile, the press and other liberals make sure to hammer on Romney for days about whatever little transgression he might have made and for some phony bs about his taxes.

    Hillary’s primary campaign ad asked who would pick up the phone at 3:00am. It wasn’t Obama because Carney already told the press that the president was not awakened. Empty chair sleepith.

  16. Romney was deservedly lambasted for being a disrespectful jerk during the 9/11 crisis, and this week for writing off half the country as a bunch of losers he doesn’t care about, but the Obama Administration better know they’re in deep trouble. Romney’s incompetence and meanness are chump change compared to this.

    Stevens knew the consulate was in danger, and it’s safe to assume he told someone. Now he and three other patriots are dead at the hands of terrorists, and Obama sent Susan Rice to all the Sunday shows to BS us about it. This is not acceptable.

  17. Joe, thanks for agreeing that this is egregious, but not to worry, the MSM will cover it up. Seriously, can you imagine them reporting that they were wrong and that the underlying motive really was Islamic terrorism? Not while Romney’s tax returns are out there and they can lambaste him for giving to the Mormon church.

  18. I shouldn’t have limited the MSM’s ignorance of the terrorism to just Romney’s tax returns. They can go after his because they don’t like his tie, or Ann’s blouse. Or maybe they can cover Kim Kardashian and her new diet.

  19. We’ll see what happens Sunday morning, Missy. Stephanopolous might let it go, but Schieffer, Gregory and Wallace won’t. And if I’m wrong, the MSM meme will be all yours. The Administration blanketed those shows with Susan Rice, and it was all bull. Those same shows better demand answers.

  20. This thing could have made him unbeatable. People gather around the President when there’s an attack, assuming that some overwhelming f-ck-up didn’t cause it to happen. Even if it did, the proper handling would mitigate it. There was an overwhelming f-ck-up, AND what looks like a coverup. Heckuva job, Barry.

  21. Susan Rice should accept responsibility for BSing us, and resign. Then the President should apologize to the country for putting her out there. This isn’t right.

  22. Then Victoria Neuland comes out and says something for the State Department, and why the hell should we believe her? We already know that they’ll send people out to BS us.

  23. Just a few hours shy of one week ago UN Ambassador Rice, who seldom does Sunday news programmes, appeared on the circuit and either was lied to by the administration about what happened or she was told what went down and intentionally lied about it to the American people.

    Jay Carney, on the other hand, has no “doubt” to get the benefit of. He not only lied about it but, in the words of Stephen Hayes, “scolded reporters who, citing the administration’s own pre-9/11 boasts about its security preparations for the anniversary, made the connection.” Carney lied to WH Press Corps, they know it, he knows it, and when the president’s spokesperson loses all credibility then he’s toast. It’s too close to election day for him to resign, of course. Not liking to be made fools of, they’re all probably going through their old notes to find and report on numerous other lies they know they’ve been fed.

  24. Credibility gap. It took Johnson years to earn his.

  25. Romney was deservedly lambasted for being a disrespectful jerk during the 9/11 crisis

    As opposed to Obama, who attended a raucous fundraiser in Las Vegas a day or so after the embassy/consulate attacks? Or how he went straight from the annual 9/11 memorial to appear on the radio to speak with the Pimp with the Limp?

  26. If you read the last dozen or so posts before this one they read like a death spiral of outrage. Each one saying no, no I’m more outraged than you by the Obama administration delaying for a few days; until they had all the facts or whatever reason; the confirmation that the Libya attack was a terrorist event.

    This happens on a regular basis with all administrations. There was no real political advantage, that I can see, in holding back the story; In fact there may have been a disadvantage to delaying the confirmation.I don’t know why the story was delayed or why Susan Rice did what she did and neither do any of you.

    The real story will come out in due time as do all these stories. Until then I’ll just wait and see what happens.

  27. BW: Obama did the the interview with Pimp with a Limp a couple of days before with the proviso that it not be played until it did. If anyone with Obama’s re-election team had their wits about them they would have called Pimp and said “bad time to play that interview – can you hold off a day or two?” But, I guess they figured correctly, no media was going to make a big deal about it so in the words of that immortal song “don’t worry, be happy” we have the media in our pocket!

    Just as an aside why is no one asking why Obama would do an interview with a guy who has “Pimp” in his handle? Obama DOES understand what a Pimp does, right? You know, that old “War on Women” thing? I guess bad optics aren’t an issue for Obama since the media, in my opinion, are all whores for Obama anyway!

    How many instances have to be shown for anyone to believe that the media isn’t in the tank for Obama? This whole issue has shown that to anyone watching and in such a short period of time.

    There was one day last week (Tuesday or Wednesday) that Bret Bair asked his panel how the NY Times could not have the word Libya in the whole newspaper. Good question – never mentioned any where else of course. But then, we all know FOX LIES”, right?

  28. will mention again, even though his network downplayed it, Jake Tapper was on the White House’s unlikely tale from day one.

  29. So any of this on “Face The Nation” this morning? No. Just “what’s wrong with Romney” featuring David Gergen, Peggy Noonan, and David Corn. Two vegetables and one named after a vegetable. The idea, as we see in this blog, is to blanket all media with this kind of discussion to make that subject the only one that matters.

  30. Larry, nothing on ABC, either. Stephanopoulos never mentioned the Ambassador or the Mideast. It was all about Romney’s 47% remark and his immigration policy, or lack thereof.

  31. Howie mentioned the story on RS today but with the CNN version. Disappointing to say the least.

  32. with >>> went with Sorry

  33. Nothing on Ambassador Stevens or the Mideast on the Meet the Press panel. All about what’s wrong with Romney and his campaign.

  34. by the Obama administration delaying for a few days; until they had all the facts or whatever reason; the confirmation that the Libya attack was a terrorist event.

    Wrong. They were not telling reporters to wait for facts. Instead, this administration launched into a concerted effort to sell the idea that this was “spontaneous”, “unpredictable”, “reaction to a hateful video”, and that the consulate in Benghazi was “well secured”. By any reasonable measure of things untrue, these were flat out lies.

  35. even if you don’t like FNC, at least this Sunday you must admit they added a little balance to the conversation:

  36. “By any reasonable measure of things untrue, these were flat out lies.”

    ^^ That’s your opinion of the situation and I respect it. Because my position is clear we will have to disagree on that point.

    The thing about this discussion from my POV is that we are not seeing the forest for the trees. The big things to come out of the past week is the security lapse at the Libyan consulate, and even more importantly the security lapse in Afghanistan that allowed the Taliban to destroy a large portion of the US Marines air power.

    Both these events need serious investigation by the Defense Dept., CIA, Congressional oversight committees and the press. It will take months to find out what really happened and why. When that process is finished heads may role even Gen. Allen or Gen. Petraeus may have to fall on their swords.

    But Republicans are only interested in the shinny object that is the few hours delay in calling the Libyan event a terrorist attack. This is because, like with ‘fast and furious’, they want to tie the event to Obama.

  37. “they want to tie the event to Obama.”

    Ya think? No, let’s just spin our wheels with ‘investigations’, and let him get reelected. Then he can be the Dems Nixon, without the requisite Foreign Affairs/National Security competence.
    I’m not going to go all Civics 101 on this, and of course there’s politics, but this is kind of important. Especially now. And shockingly, the nets barely covered it. Who ever could have anticipated that?

  38. laura, do you really think a serious investigation of the security lapses is ‘spinning our wheels” ?

    There was no obvious political advantage gained by Obama by delaying the terrorist attack story; that I can see, In fact it appears to have been a political loser based on comments here; except that it has diverted attention from the real security lapse story and on to some odd conspiracy theory that you on the right seem to hold. Hmmm. Maybe there is a political advantage after all..

  39. Fritz, you’ve cited that Vanity Fair piece numerous times to show that Obama and his people are on top of everything.

    If they are, what’s the explanation here? What happened?

    Second, they’ve been trying to portray all of these incidents – not just the Benghazi attack – as spontaneous reactions to that anti-Islamic video. They don’t want people to consider the possibility that the outreach to the Islamic world is failing. That the Arab Spring which they supported is being hijacked by extremists.

    That, in effect, their entire approach to the Islamic world is in disarray.

    That may be, in part – large or small – the political motivation behind all of this. May.

    All you see behind these questions is Democrat and Republican. It’s a lot more than just politics.

  40. -Obvious political advantages-

    -Not allowing Obama’s Mid-East policy take a major hit right before election.
    – Steer conversation away from a terrorist attack on US soil on the anniversary of 9/11 on Obama’s watch and, again, right before election.
    – By pushing “spontaneous” – suggesting that such an attack could not be foreseen on 9/11 – it can hold-off reporting on the woefully inadequate security arrangements that are now plainly obvious without waiting for any investigation.

    … just to list three.

    The first administration response after the embassy’s tweets came from Sec Clinton’s office and she shut that “video” meme right down and her embassy deleted their tweets about it immediately. Her instincts were correct and it was not until the White House chimed in that she again semi-adopted that “video” line of reasoning. Hillary Clinton was overruled and she answers to no one except the president.

  41. “If they are, what’s the explanation here? What happened?”

    ^^ I have no clue and neither does anyone else posting here. It’s all pure speculation based on what people read in their favorite news sources.

    “Second, they’ve been trying to portray all of these incidents – not just the Benghazi attack – as spontaneous reactions to that anti-Islamic video. They don’t want people to consider the possibility that the outreach to the Islamic world is failing. That the Arab Spring which they supported is being hijacked by extremists.”

    I believe they are calling the Benghazi attack a terrorist event after a few days of confusion. My thought on the other attacks is that they are a replay of the Danish cartoon or Koran burning affairs from a few years ago.

    Islamic extremists find some fake excuse to fire up their followers into a frenzy and send them out to attack American interests in whatever country them live in. These riots in various mid and far east countries are made up of a tiny part of their population. They are much like the OWS movement or Tea party just with much more violence.The vast majority of the populations don’t care one way or the other they are just trying to survive much like we in the US..
    The Arab spring is a big movement in many countries. Saying it sows the Obama outreach has failed is premature at best; just wrong at worse. You could argue, but i don’t, that the Arab Spring itself was caused by Obama’s outreach and that on the hold it’s been a success. i don’t know anywhere the government has been hijacked by extremists. In Egypt there was an election and the Muslim brotherhood candidate won

  42. ^^them live in >> they live in;
    sows >> shows; hold >> whole Sorry

  43. Al ; your examples are mostly just silly. His mid east policy is; whatever that is; is not going to take a hit because of these events. We disagree.
    Calling a safe house in Benghazi US territory may be technically true but no one will cast a vote on that .
    I agree the security arrangements is the story but trying to tie Hillary Clinton and thus Obama to that is laughable. If that were the case then George Tenet and Donald Rumsfeld and thus GWB would have been held responsible for the massive security screw ups in 9/11 and Michael Chertoff and thus GWB for the disaster that was the.Katrina response.

  44. The Administration blew it, the networks blew it, Missy doesn’t know how “pimp” works in urban culture, and BW doesn’t know that the fundraising portion of the Vegas event was cancelled. Congratulations to all.

  45. Missy is urban challenged, but we’re okay with it. BW is just challenged..

  46. We love our Missy Cat..I should have left her off that list.

  47. joe: I don’t believe that missy made any comment about “pimp”. That was me and you are right I don’t “know how “pimp” works in urban culture,”. i think there may be a lot of stupid people like me out there who don’t get it either.

    Just label me a stupid, middle aged, white woman from flyover country. We get dismissed by so many!

  48. Pimp is a good thing in somebody’s culture?

  49. UPDATE: CNN released the following statement:

    CNN did not initially report on the existence of a journal out of respect for the family, but we felt there were issues raised in the journal which required full reporting, which we did. We think the public had a right to know what CNN had learned from multiple sources about the fears and warnings of a terror threat before the Benghazi attack which are now raising questions about why the State Department didn’t do more to protect Ambassador Stevens and other US personnel. Perhaps the real question here is why is the State Department now attacking the messenger.

    As we said, we had multiple sources on Anderson Cooper’s report Wednesday night.

    The reason CNN ultimately reported Friday on the existence of the journal was because leaks to media organizations incorrectly suggested CNN had not quickly returned the journal, which we did. We reached out to the family of Ambassador Stevens within hours of retrieving the journal and returned it through a third party, within less than 24 hours from the time we found it. Out of respect to the family, we have not quoted from or shown the journal.

  50. Is crackho a good thing too?

  51. If y’all want to play stupid about “pimp” or “pimpin” in young urban culture, have at it. Don’t forget to tell those kids to get off your lawn.

  52. To hell with the kids, I want YOU off my lawn.

  53. I’d love to know how David Gregory can justify not mentioning the BS spun on his show last week. Tim Russert would have said something.

    On the topic he did bother to cover, Kelly Ayotte was in the unfortunate position of having to defend Mitt Romney. They played the clip of him calling half the country a bunch of losers, then she had to proclaim “He really does care about everyone!” Uh huh. Oh, and tell us about this awesome plan he has for the economy. Saying “he has a plan” is not a plan.

  54. I agree the security arrangements is the story but trying to tie Hillary Clinton and thus Obama to that is laughable.

    Nowhere did I try to tie Hillary Clinton to the security arrangements although, now that you mention it, all embassies and consulates are directly her responsibility. As for me trying to tie the president to the security arrangements, again I did not. It was the White House that had been touting this administration’s preparedness at all embassies and consulates around the world leading up to the anniversary of 9/11. They weren’t prepared enough.

    My reference to Mrs. Clinton was to highlight her initial (and later proven correct) decision to disavow the embassy’s tweets. With reports and evidence coming in as early as that same day confirming she was correct, why would the Sec. of State then flip-flop and push this video as being the cause for “spontaneous” hostilities?

    It could be that she wrongly changed her mind. It could also be that the one person with the authority to tell her what to do told her what to do.

    -Obama going to Nevada-

    Arguably insensitive, but I couldn’t stand such subjective arguments used against Bush so shouldn’t like them when used against Obama, either. POTUS can conduct most official duties from anywhere. Just like the noise about Romney’s gaffs, it’s all small and insignificant stuff.

  55. ^^ Sorry Al you’re correct. I misread your comment.

    I thought the tweets you were referring to were from after the Benghazi attack; as discussed in the preceding paragraph; and not the Egyptian ones the day before. I should have known you would never have made such a silly comment.

    I’m not familiar with the Mrs’ Clintons tweets from the Egyptian embassy and so find your theory of what happened somewhat confusing. I assume whatever sources you are using are completely unbiased and not just the right wing blogosphere. It sounds a bit far fetched though.

    But who knows; now that the ‘fast and furious’ case has been solved, Darrell Issa is on the case and will spare no expense to get to the bottom of this conspiracy to hide Obama’s role in the Egyptian affair.

  56. Bush didn’t cause Katrina. He did not personally run FEMA. He did not vote for the idiot govenor of Luisiana nor the mayor of New Orleans. But he took the flack for bad things that happened. Part of the job description. Jimmy Carter is about as much to blame for the failed raid to rescue the Iran hostages as Obama is responsible for the success of the raid to capture or kill bin Laden. A president lives with the success of others and dies with their failures.

  57. Back to the subject of this post…

    Did CNN release any personal information from the ambassador’s journal? That would be sleazy journalism if they did, but if they only used it for leads about the attack or state of security before then, etc., are there any reporters who wouldn’t?

  58. A meme is being developed here that the video had nothing to do with any protests. That is incorrect. Cairo spoke about it, and the administration rightly distanced itself from it. Libya and Egypt are separate events related to the date of Sep. 11.

  59. You are correct. The Cairo embassy did not think up a video connection to a planned protest all on its own. There was also an attempt to incite violence in Cairo that its… I’ll say “government” shut down. It may actually be that the Egyptian military had more to do with shutting down the incitement as the elected government had something to so with it starting up in the first place.

  60. “Bush didn’t cause Katrina. He did not personally run FEMA”.

    ^^Ehh! Try to follow along Larry. That was my point.

    Just like Bush didn’t cause Katrina or personally run FEMA; although he hire ‘Brownie’ to run it; Obama didn’t cause the riots in the mid east or the attack on the consulate in Libya So blaming him for the lax security in Benghazi or not stopping the video from being shown is like blaming Bush for FEMA’s lack of preparedness for Katrina.

  61. Larry’s analogy wasn’t an equivalence argument. Bush had neither actual power nor claim of power to prevent a hurricane from hitting an unprepared city and state.

    Obama, on the other hand, did have a policy in place which he claimed would repair relations with the Muslim world. His policy is not working.

  62. I don’t think you can say Obama’s policy is a complete failure simply because bad things still happen. The reality is, there’s a sect of Islam bent on destroying the West. There’s also thousands of Muslims protesting the assasination of Ambassador Stevens in Libya. It’s a complex mess, and claiming victory or failure at this point is futile.

  63. It is not Obama’s fault that bad things still happen, and that is especially true in the Middle East where bad things are going to continue happening. But America is fast losing respect and that sentiment appears to be growing around the world.

    There’s a reason China is choosing now to threaten Japan.

  64. America lost much respect under The Cowboy George Bush. Pretending this is an Obama problem is ludicrous.

  65. The larger fear expressed by those much smarter than me about Middle East politics is that the void created by the recent loss of US influence in the region is being filled by an increasingly hostile-to-US Russia, and even India is getting closer relations with China.

  66. I think people who believe the US lost respect under George Bush are only considering the propaganda of those already hostile. Start with Saudi Arabia and you can quickly click-off a long list of nations who began losing respect after Bush left office. This also includes European countries, although you have probably paid more attention to the sentiments expressed by the more Socialist elements – no insult made or intended, btw.

  67. I think it’s all very complicated, and simplistic protestations that this guy was great at it, but that guy is terrible, are easy talking points for television dunderheads.

  68. ^ That’s fair. It’s Obama’s own words – when he said the tensions will ease the moment he takes the oath – is what much of this is about. Whether things would be better under Romney or not is an unknown. Only thing known is that things aren’t nearly as great as Obama promised, and they’re arguably worse than they were.

  69. I believe Barack Obama meant well with those words of solace and encouragement. I also believe today’s Barack Obama thinks that guy should have kept his mouth shut.

  70. If Obama wasn’t such a pompous… he could say exactly that and even get kudos from everyone at Fox News except maybe Hannity.

  71. ^ Hey, Obama’s tried to be Abe Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, etc., so should be no problem for him to try being Bob Dole and say that exactly as Joe wrote it.

  72. If he’s attacked by a rabbit, he’ll have them all covered.

  73. “There’s a reason China is choosing now to threaten Japan.”

    ^^ Yes, but Obama’s mid east policy is not it.

    Your opinion that Obama’s mid east policy has failed is debatable at best, just wrong at worse.

    The whole argument seems to the latest Republican foreign policy talking point. I’ve read and heard a bunch of Republican pundits and politicians (the latest being John Barrasso on MJ this morning) state it almost word for word, just as AL and others do here.

    I have to admit it’s a good talking point because it’s so vague and amorphous you can tie almost any foreign policy event to it; i.e. China threatens Japan.

  74. I erred in the post above. Al was referring to America losing respect under Obama and not specifically Obama’s mid east policy when he referenced the China comment. Sorry Al I had the comment you posted just before the China one in my mind when I replied.

    The American losing respect POV is also a very debatable talking point; although a much older one. I still think it’s a good one though because it’s so vague and amorphous you can tie almost any foreign policy event to it; i.e. China threatens Japan.

  75. Pay attention, Fritz. All of this is important.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: