Skip to content

UPDATE: China Will Trade Debt for US Land…

January 21, 2013

Communist nation could control American land as ‘development zones’


EDITOR’S NOTE: Barack Obama’s involvement in the DeMar Second Amendment case was previously reported in Chapter 7 of Jerome R. Corsi’s “America for Sale: Fighting the New World Order, Surviving a Global Depression, and Preserving USA Sovereignty.”

NEW YORK – Could real estate on American soil owned by China be set up as “development zones” in which the communist nation could establish Chinese-owned businesses and bring in its citizens to the U.S. to work?

That’s part of an evolving proposal Beijing has been developing quietly since 2009 to convert more than $1 trillion of U.S debt it owns into equity.

Under the plan, China would own U.S. businesses, U.S. infrastructure and U.S. high-value land, all with a U.S. government guarantee against loss.

Yu Qiao, a professor of economics in the School of Public Policy and Management at Tsighua University in Beijing, proposed in 2009 a plan for the U.S. government to guarantee foreign investments in the United States.

WND has reliable information that the Bank of China, China’s central bank, has continued to advance the plan to convert China’s holdings of U.S. debt into equity owned by China in the U.S.

The Obama administration, under the plan, would grant a financial guarantee as an inducement for China to convert U.S. debt into Chinese direct equity investment. China would take ownership of successful U.S. corporations, potentially profitable infrastructure projects and high-value U.S. real estate.

Jerome Corsi exposes the globalists’ plan to put America on the chopping block in “America for Sale: Fighting the New World Order, Surviving a Global Depression, and Preserving USA Sovereignty,” available at WND’s Superstore.

The plan would be designed to induce China to resume lending to the U.S. on a nearly zero-interest basis.

However, converting Chinese debt to equity investments in the United States could easily add another $1 trillion to outstanding Obama administration guarantees issued in the current economic crisis.

As of November 2012, China owned $1.17 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities, according to U.S. Department of Treasury and Federal Reserve Board calculations published Jan. 16.

Concerned about the unrestrained growth in U.S. debt under the Obama administration, China has reduced by 97 percent its holdings in short-term U.S. Treasury bills. China’s holding of $573.7 billion in August 2008, prior to the massive bank bailouts and stimulus programs triggered by the collapse in the U.S. mortgage market, dwindled to $5.96 billion by March 2011.

Treasury bills are short-term debt that matures in one year or less, sold to finance U.S. debt. Holdings of Treasury bills are included in the $1.17 trillion of total Treasury securities owned by China as of November 2012.

In addition to a national debt in excess of $16 trillion, the U.S. government in 2010 faced over $70 trillion in unfunded obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits scheduled to be paid retiring baby boomer retirees in the coming decades, with unfunded obligations showing no sign of being reduced with Congress at a deadlock over reducing federal government spending.

Yu Qiao observed that if the U.S. dollar collapsed under the weight of proposed Obama administration trillion-dollar budget deficits into the foreseeable future, holders of U.S. debt would face substantial losses that the Financial Times estimated “would devastate Asians’ hard-earned wealth and terminate economic globalization.”

“The basic idea is to turn Asian savings, China’s in particular, into real business interests rather than let them be used to support U.S. over-consumption,” Yu Qiao wrote, reflecting themes commonly suggested by Chinese government officials. “While fixed-income securities are vulnerable to any fall in the value of the dollar, equity claims on sound corporations and infrastructure projects are at less risk from a currency default,” he continued.

The problem is that, in a struggling U.S. economy, China does not want to trade its investment in U.S. Treasury debt securities, with their inherent risk of dollar devaluation, for equally risky investments in U.S. corporations and infrastructure projects.

“But Asians do not want to bear the risk of this investment because of market turbulence and a lack of knowledge of cultural, legal and regulatory issues in U.S. businesses,” he stressed. “However if a guarantee scheme were created, Asian savers could be willing to invest directly in capital-hungry U.S. industries.”

Yu Qiao’s plan included four components:

China would negotiate with the U.S. government to create a “crisis relief facility,” or CRF. The CRF “would be used alongside U.S. federal efforts to stabilize the banking system and to invest in capital-intensive infrastructure projects such as high-speed railroad from Boston to Washington, D.C.
China would pool a portion of its holdings of Treasury bonds under the CFR umbrella to convert sovereign debt into equity. Any CFR funds that were designated for investment in U.S. corporations would still be owned and managed by U.S. equity holders, with the Asians holding minority equity shares “that would, like preferred stock, be convertible.”

The U.S. government would act as a guarantor, “providing a sovereign guarantee scheme to assure the investment principal of the CRF against possible default of targeted companies or projects”.

The Federal Reserve would set up a special account to supply the liquidity the CRF would require to swap sovereign debt into industrial investment in the United States.

“The CRF would lessen Asians’ concern about implicit default of sovereign debts caused by a collapsing dollar,” Yu Qiao concluded. “It would cost little and help the U.S. by channeling funds to business investment.”

Read more at:



World View: Discussion of China’s Directive to ‘Get Ready for War’

by John J. Xenakis


This morning’s key headlines from

  • China’s strategy
  • How would the U.S. react to a Chinese invasion of a neighbor?
  • China’s military strength
  • The Chinese threat


My recent article “China’s directive to the People’s Liberation Army: Get Ready for War” was posted in several places and drew hundreds of questions and comments. In this article, I’m going to provide some responses.

I quoted Dai Xu, a Chinese Air Force Colonel, as advocating a short decisive war against one of China’s neighbors:

Since we have decided that the U.S. is bluffing in the East China Sea, we should take this opportunity to respond to these empty provocations with something real.

This includes Vietnam, the Philippines and Japan, who are the three running dogs of the United States in Asia. We only need to kill one, and it will immediately bring the others to heel.”

One web site reader wrote:

“China might alternatively pick Vietnam as the dog to be killed. Vietnam does not have a defense pact with the United States and the U.S. might seek to provide only indirect assistance to Vietnam. Vietnam might also refuse to surrender and be impossible to pacify in a “quick war”.China could find itself at war with a minor power and not with any major power for a number of years.”

Another wrote:

“If China was going to war with anyone (and I do not wish war on anyone) I’d prefer they attack Vietnam. This wouldn’t suck the Western Allies in and it could teach China a good lesson of being bled dry by a tenacious enemy. This would be best case IMO outside of peace of course.”

This discussion highlighted something that hadn’t occurred to me before: That an attack on Vietnam is the “logical” choice for China. From China’s point of view, there would be several advantages:

  • It would raise far less nationalism in the United States than would attacks on Japan or the Philippines.
  • China has a score to settle with Vietnam, following the 1979 China-Vietnam war.
  • The motive would be “kill a chicken to scare the monkeys,” as the old Chinese saying goes.
  • It would assert complete control over the South China Sea.
  • China claims that America has been a troublemaker in the South and East China Seas, because these countries have been confronting China in the confident belief that they would be defended by the U.S. If the U.S. does not defend Vietnam, then the other countries would no longer feel confident, and would no longer challenge China.
  • It would scare Japan, so that China could take control of the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, and Japan would retreat.

(The last reason, of course, is sheer fantasy, but it’s possible that Chinese hawks believe it.)

China invaded Vietnam in 1979 in a war where China was repulsed quickly. China made some serious mistakes in that war. Those mistakes would not be repeated in this crisis era.

It’s possible that a Chinese invasion of Vietnam would lead to President Obama’s “Neville Chamberlain moment.” But, as in that case, any later aggressive action by China would lead to full-scale war. Time Magazine

How would the U.S. react to a Chinese invasion of a neighbor?

Some Chinese military planners believe that Americans will “run like rabbits” and not honor its mutual defense treaties, if China invaded one of its neighbors. A lot of commenters believe the same thing:

“The only reason the Chinese might think “Americans will run like rabbits” is because of this administration’s recent weak performance in the Middle East, and because of the tenuous U.S. (and Western) economy (both White House admins are to blame here).

Whatever one thinks about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is clear to all foreign entities that America shows neither a principled and goal oriented interaction nor a policy engaged from a position of confidence (exerted quietly or visibly).”

I expressed the opinion that “President Obama would not have any choice if Congress declared war, which might happen within hours of any Chinese attack.” One reader responded:

“First, yes he would. He could dither on the deployments the way France and the U.K. did after Hitler seized Bohemia and Moravia and declared Slovakia a Protectorate, then dithered some more when Hitler declared war on Poland, launching a mighty Sitzkrieg offensive in the Pacific while saving the Blitzkrieg for the media and stump circuit.In the face of that, all Congress could do is impeach him, even while an attempt is made to repeal the 22nd Amendment so he can do nothing for even more [years].

Second, what if a declaration of war passes the House but not the Senate? Never mind the Chamberlain in the White House, Harry Reid could play his own version of Neville, and no war resolution would ever reach the floor of the Senate.

What exactly would happen if Congress “couldn’t” decide?”

Dithering would be a high-risk political strategy for the President and a Democratic Senate. When Neville Chamberlain promised “Peace in our time” after meeting with Hitler, he was doing something that seemed perfectly reasonable on that day. And yet, Chamberlain has been damned by history as the man who appeased Adolf Hitler. President Obama would risk being damned as a modern day Neville Chamberlain who appeased the Chinese.

China’s military strength

There were widely varied opinions about China’s military strength:

“A nuclear holocaust might be a tad bit premature. We’re not really sure what China’s nuclear capability is, specifically their ability to hit the US. Couple of points:Until the 1990s, their primary nuclear target was the Soviet Union. China is notorious for stockpiling archaic military equipment, even if it doesn’t work.

Even if Obama’s military and nuclear cuts hit before any war with China, our nuclear capability far exceeds theirs. The Chinese government knows this.

China probably has around 500 – 600 nuclear weapons and enough materials to build another 400 over a few years. But the US is not China’s only target. Some of those weapons have to be kept aimed at India and Russia, both nuclear powers. Many of China’s warheads are mounted on train-track based launchers that are pointed north, northwest. China would be risking a Russian retaliatory strike by launching those warheads.

Many, as high as 20%, of China’s warheads are gravity bombs designed to be dropped by late WWII style bombers.

China does not have force projection capabilities. They have one carrier in partial service and with a small air wing. They have no long range amphibious assault ships. They cannot establish a perimeter line, like the Japanese, that could keep US forces away from mainland China. And China does not have the nuclear ability to knock the US out of any fight. They can position diesel electric subs at choke points in an attempt to ambush US carrier groups. That does nothing about the USAF and China would be gambling their entire sub force.

A far more realistic scenario would be a Chinese invasion of easier targets in the region. Picture The Philippines, Okinawa, and/or Taiwan. If the US intervened, China would use a limited number of nuclear weapons on nations that could provide the US with military bases, specifically Japan. Hitting Japan would have the bonus of hitting the US economy. China will be betting on the US not retaliating with nuclear weapons if the US is not the target. China would then fortify their gains and simply wait for the US to go bankrupt. Once that happens, China would be free to begin expanding its control throughout the remainder of South East Asia and the Pacific unopposed.”

Another reader pointed out:

“Based on what we know, the DF21 “carrier killer” missile shown in the photo has never been tested on seaborne targets.”

However, one more reader said that China’s military capabilities are far more advanced than we realize:

“What most people don’t realize is that most of China’s infrastructure is dual-use civilian/military. That is, every train, plane, truck, railway, road, you name it, is designed for military use, as well as civilian use. For example, in a matter of weeks, all of China’s shipping -ALL of it- can literally be plugged into the military command and control system and converted for military use. This incluse ‘plug and play’ cargo, missile and weapons systems for their cargo ships and civilian aircraft.In short, they held an arms race…and no one else showed up.

What set them off was America’s victory in the first gulf war. They paid attention and began to redesign their entire military and civilian infrastructure. They also reworked their military philosophy. For over twenty years, they’ve been preparing to fight America in a war.

A probable naval scenario: Imagine a cargo ship loaded with disposable anti-ship missile platforms. Precision guided missiles. Thousands of them. Imagine a US navy task force on the receiving end of five thousand precision guided missiles.”

China is known to be planning “asymmetric warfare,” attacking America’s weak points by unconventional means. According to one reader:

“Our key vulnerability is cyberattack. We’re still not doing as much as we should to protect ourselves, but we’re finally taking action and it looks like some of our leaders are realizing how dangerous it is. That’ll be the primary method to take down our capabilities. I would say it would set us back at least a couple months, probably longer than that. Their optimum time to strike in that theater would be in the near future.Our satellites will be the next mode of crippling us. I read in the 2007 about their anti-satellite and I’d bet that by now they’ve got hundreds of anti-satellite missiles ready for use. It won’t take more than a day or two.”

See also “14-Oct-12 World View — Huawei scandal exposes potential ‘Cyberwar Pearl Harbor’ from China” from last year.


The Chinese threat

There were some skeptical remarks, like:

“With the coming soft or hard landing in China’s economy, using war with a small neighbor, is a sure fire way to divert the attention of the common person. Look at Argentina did during the Falkland Island war and ready to do it again. Only a mistake or believing their own public relations spin will start a war between the US and PRC.”

However, the most skeptical remark of all was simply:

“This is a completely uninformed and ridiculous article.”

I knew I would get this kind of criticism, and that’s why I put in links to several Chinese and American sources, so that readers could verify the information for themselves. However, I would add that comments like this usually come from someone who couldn’t even find China on a map, let alone have a clue what’s going on in the world.

When I was growing up in the 1950s, my school teachers mocked and ridiculed two sets of people in the 1930s: The ones who, like Herbert Hoover, believed that “prosperity was just around the corner,” even though the Depression kept worsening, and the ones who ignored the dangers in Europe and simply took “Peace in our time” for granted. When I was in school, I never understood how so many people could be so obviously wrong. Now that the same thing is happening today, I realize that there are many people who simply can’t deal with the anxiety, and are willing to believe almost anything.

I’ve been writing about the coming war with China for almost ten years now. What has been apparent all along is that China isn’t even bothering to hide their intentions. It’s not like Russia, for example, where Vladimir Putin may bash and scorn the West, but the days of “We will bury you” are long gone.

But the Chinese vocally threaten war somewhere almost on a daily basis. They have a very different world view that we have. In 2007, I quoted Sha Zukang, the Chinese U.N. ambassador, who said, “one INCH of the territory is more valuable than the LIVES of our people.” With 1.5 billion people, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) almost has no choice but to view people as interchangeable and expendable cogs in a massive wheel of agriculture and industry. China has made this clear repeatedly. I believe that it was Lao Tzu in “The Art of War” who said that in a war the side with the advantage is the side that isn’t afraid to die, and the Chinese aren’t afraid to allow millions of their people die if that’s the way to achieve victory.
Permanent web link to this article


  1. January 22, 2013 7:38 pm

    There is personal information in that mail (names). I want to respect the wishes in their request. Send it via e-mail to all your friends. You can forward it to people you know personally and I will do the same.

  2. January 22, 2013 7:55 pm

    Obama’s lofty inaugural ideals run into reality

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama’s lofty ideals from his inaugural address ran smack into reality Tuesday on the first working day of his second term.

    Twenty-four hours after Obama pledged to tackle climate change and called for gays and lesbians to be treated equally under the law, the White House struggled to back up his sweeping rhetoric with specifics, raising questions about how much political muscle he’ll put behind both issues.

    Republicans were already signaling their unhappiness with Obama’s agenda.

    you can read more at link:

  3. January 22, 2013 8:16 pm

    Muslim Patrol UK: thugs abuse man in second ‘vigilante’ video against gays…

    A second inflammatory video featuring Islamic vigilantes emerged today, which appeared to show members of the group hurling homophobic abuse at a man and telling him to leave their “Muslim area”.

    The footage, from a group calling themselves Muslim Patrol, shows the gang abusing the unnamed man who was walking by himself in Whitechapel, East London.

    Today Scotland Yard said they were investigating the video, which was posted on YouTube. Muslim leaders also condemned the thugs’ behaviour.

    It comes after the gang uploaded another video called “The Truth About Saturday Night”, in which white women were called “naked animals with no self-respect”.

    In the latest video, hooded thugs shout at the terrified man, who appears to be wearing make-up, before one tells him: “Mate, don’t you know this is a Muslim area. What’s wrong with your face?”

    Another then shouts: “This is a Muslim area get out of here. Get out here you b—– f–. You can’t stay round here anymore.”

  4. January 22, 2013 8:16 pm

    The pos’s TV ratings cut by almost two thirds as well. You tell me how he got re(s)elected? Impossible. Pure fraud. And the repubs stood by and let it happen.

    Whereas approximately 17 million people watched Obama’s address on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News in 2009, only around 7 million watched on those three channels in 2013.

    So the inaugural attendance was down by almost two thirds, he supposedly won by a 3 % margin, down from 7 % in 2008 and no one questions the validity of the results?

    Sounds like a perfect case of “Black Box” voting to me, change just enough of the touchscreen votes so it’s not super obvious, keep the margins within a couple % points. Like 51% – 49%.

    Problem is the pos handlers got spooked and set up 100% margins in many precincts.

    And now even Fox is saying oh well, the country has changed. BS. That’s the perception they’re trying to sell.

    We are screwed.

  5. January 22, 2013 8:38 pm

    The Most Dangerous Sentence in Obama’s Second Inaugural Address

    Jan 21, 2013 •
    William Kristol

    In an otherwise unmemorable second inaugural speech, I was struck by one sentence: “But we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war, who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends, and we must carry those lessons into this time as well.”

    Two points: First, our forebears were only able to “win the peace” because they first
    crushed our enemies in war. But under President Obama we’re not committed to winning our wars. We’re committed to ending them. Does Obama really think we’re going to win the peace after not winning the war?

    Second, think about the formulation—”and not just.” Surely President Obama should have said this: “we are also heirs to those who won the peace as well as the war…” But he didn’t say that. The formulation Obama chose—”and not just the war”—suggests that Obama believes that it’s no big deal to win a war, and the greater achievement is winning the peace. With respect to World War II, this view is ludicrous. With respect to today’s world, this view is dangerous.


    Everything Obama said yesterday was scripted by someone else- not him. So, if this is the ideology he has sworn to follow… by his owners, then buckle up because we are in for it!


  6. January 22, 2013 10:37 pm

    Shock claim: Obama only wants military leaders who ‘will fire on U.S. citizens’


    On Monday, renowned author and humanitarian Dr. Jim Garrow made a shocking claim about what we can expect to see in Obama’s second term.

    Garrow made the following Facebook post:

    I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not.” Those who will not are being removed.

    So, who is the source?

    Garrow replied: “The man who told me this is one of America’s foremost military heroes.”

    Understand, this is not coming from Alex Jones or Jesse Ventura, or from anyone else the left often dismisses with great ease.

    Garrow is a well-respected activist and has spent much of his life rescuing infant girls from China, babies who would be killed under that country’s one-child policy. He was also nominated for Nobel Peace Prize for his work.

    His bio on reads:

    Dr. James Garrow is the author of The Pink Pagoda: One Man’s Quest to End Gendercide in China. He has spent over $25 million over the past sixteen years rescuing an estimated 40,000 baby Chinese girls from near-certain death under China’s one-child-per-couple policy by facilitating international adoptions. He is the founder and executive director of the Bethune Institute’s Pink Pagoda schools, private English-immersion schools for Chinese children. Today he runs 168 schools with nearly 6,300 employees.

    This comes on the heels of Sunday’s report in the Washington Free Beacon (WFB) that the head of Central Command, Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis is being dismissed by Obama and will leave his post in March.

    The WFB article states:

    “Word on the national security street is that General James Mattis is being given the bum’s rush out of his job as commander of Central Command, and is being told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned.”

    Did Gen. Mattis refuse to “fire on U.S. citizens?”

  7. January 22, 2013 10:54 pm

    Comments from Gateway Pundit from the above headline:

    #1 January 22, 2013 at 11:01 am
    ★FALCON★ commented:

    A caller to the Warroom made these same allegations a few weeks ago. He didn’t say lot and couldn’t reveal all he knew – but he did indicate that something nefarious is coming.
    #2 January 22, 2013 at 11:03 am
    luckyone commented:

    This is how Obama will claim his Dictatorship. He will never leave willingly.

    #3 January 22, 2013 at 11:04 am
    cavt commented:

    Never heard of Garrow and this is just hard to believe except it does follow with the dictators constant war on conservatives. Dictators words and actions do bring this claim into the realm of possibility.

    #7 January 22, 2013 at 11:10 am
    ★FALCON★ commented:

    @ Brian – Obama’s crew already relieved Carter Ham and a few others for attempting to assist those in Benghazi.

    If you go to the DHS Website under purchase orders – or to the Congressional Appropriations – you will find all of the items DHS has purchased.

    Everyone already knows about the billions of rounds of ammo – however, most do not know about the bullet proof check point booths, nor the other items at seem to have earmarks for Americans.

    Personally, I don’t believe Obama is to be trusted with any power, even limited.

    The rest of Gateways comments here:

  8. January 23, 2013 8:45 am

    tell, I read that GP article and the comments and I was going to post someof the comments.


  9. January 23, 2013 8:46 am

    Just for a laugh. Here’s a post with photo shopped images featuring the Geraldine hooker wig.

  10. January 23, 2013 10:55 am

    CBS’s Attkisson: Obama Admin. Has Stonewalled on Benghazi Since October

    January 22, 2013

    On Tuesday, CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson broke on Twitter that the Obama administration “has indicated that it will not be answering Benghazi question we’ve been asking since Oct.” Attkisson, who has provided hard-hitting reporting on the September 11, 2012 Islamist attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya, listed many of the questions that the executive branch has yet to answer about the story.

    The journalist noted in a later Tweet that “CBS News FOI’d Benghazi info from State Dept, CIA, FBI and Defense Dept. None has been provided.” Attkisson also pointed out a false claim by the administration:

    Additionally, CBS News has repeatedly requested the promised surveillance video from Benghazi but it has not been provided. We’ve also asked for any White House photos taken that night, as well as an accounting of Pres. Obama’s decisions and actions. None has been provided….At a press conference 11/14/12, ,b>President Obama stated that his Admin. has provided all info regarding ‘what happened in Benghazi.’

    The CBS correspondent posted some of the questions that the Obama White House has failed to answer in 22 consecutive Tweets:

    What time was Ambassador’s Stevens’ body recovered, what are the known details surrounding his disappearance and death, including where he/his body was taken/found/transported and by whom?

    Who made the decision not to convene the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) the night of the Benghazi attacks?

    We understand that convening the CSG a protocol under Presidential directive (“NSPD-46”). Is that true? If not, please explain. [If] so, why was the protocol not followed? Is the Administration revising the applicable Presidential directive? If so, please explain.

    Who is the highest-ranking official who was aware of pre-911 security requests from US personnel in Libya?

    Who is/are the official(s) responsible for removing reference to al-Qaeda from the original CIA notes?

    Was the President aware of Gen. Petraeus’ potential problems prior to Thurs., Nov. 8, 2012? And What was the earliest that any White House official was aware? Please provide details.

    What is your response to the President stating that on Sept. 12, he called 911 a terrorist attack, in light of his CBS interview on that date in which he answered that it was too early to know whether it was a terrorist attack?

    The Administration has stated there were no resources outside Libya that could arrive in Benghazi/N. Africa within 8 hrs on Sept. 11, 2012. Why wouldn’t there be and who would have made that decision to leave the area so open on the anniversary of 9/11? And Does this mean that the Administration would have used them if available?

    Is anyone being held accountable for having no resources close enough to reach this high-threat area within 8+ hours on Sept. 11, and has the Administration taken steps to have resources available sooner in case of emergency in the future?

    A Benghazi victim’s family member stated that Mrs. Clinton told him she would find and arrest whoever made the anti-Islam video. Is this accurate? If so, what was Mrs. Clinton’s understanding at the time of what would be the grounds for arrest?

    The Administration is reported to have asked that the anti-Islamist YouTube video initially blamed in Benghazi be removed from YouTube. If true, what is the Administration’s view regarding other videos or future material that it may wish were not published, but are legal? What is the Administration’s criteria in general for requesting removal of a YouTube or other Internet video?

    It should be pointed out that Attkisson hasn’t reported on the Benghazi story on the air since the November 23, 2012 edition of CBS This Morning, according to a search on Nexis. It will be interesting to see if the questions she revealed on Twitter will make it on the network’s morning or evening newscasts.

    [H/t: The Heritage Foundation’s Lachlan Markey on Twitter. Markey is also a former blogger for NewsBusters.]

    Although Hillary has taken full responsibility for Benghazi, the fact of the matter is, Obama wants this problem to go away and be forgotten. AFAIC- Hillary is not the person that should be subject to questioning. When she was not privy personally actually being present at the time when the decision was made telling our overseas resources capable of extraction and providing cover for the 4 Americans pinned down in Benghazi TO STAND DOWN. My perspective is- Panetta and Obama should be in the Hot Seat because it was they who were in control of the situation as it was happening having an unarmed drone video taping what was happening at the Benghazi compound while it was under attack.

    What I am seeing as the Senate Hearing unfolds is the high esteem shown by the Senate to SOS Clinton for all her hard work and respect for her ongoing recuperation. Which for a change is a breath of fresh air when it comes to a Clinton.

  11. January 23, 2013 12:16 pm

    Basil, I read your comments over at 44.. and for the reasons I mentioned in the post above, I say this: If you expect Hillary to point a finger at Obama and or Panetta, it’s just not going to happen. She is facing a wholly democratic Senate 99% of which got Obama elected for a second term. Any Senator could have blown the whistle on the stolen election if he felt he could stand up for the people and do the right thing. The Senate and the media have stood by silently and let another illegal inauguration take place.

    Now here is what I think will eventually happen- after Hillary steps down. When enough space and time have elapsed, the Benghazi tragedy will just not go away. They have Hillary’s testimony so she is on record. If in the near future enough evidence comes to light in the form of a “smoking gun” … I predict the right people, namely Panetta and Obama, will eventually be subject to the Hot Seat. According to Hillary she was busy on the phones as there was violence erupting in Cairo and they were calling for help. Cairo had the advantage of a Marine contingent and we don’t know for sure, but the way Hillary testimony went- Obama, Jarrett and Panetta kept her busy addressing other crisis’s breaking at the same time as Benghazi.. Yes, Hillary’s office may have received the cables from Stevens but she never mentioned she was aware of them or that he and the rest of our Americans were pined down and in fear of their lives. Stevens cables could very well have been diverted to the trio running the show… Jarrett, Panetta and Obama making the final decisions. None of the senators asked who was present with her in her office at the time of the attack noting that Foggy Bottom is not near the WH or the War Room.. Say, she had been in contact with the 3 decision makers.. and all they said to her is : “we’re handling this” you take care of Cairo and succeeded keeping her in the dark until the irrevocable damage was done. Then the next day filling her in with the fake video intel as their assessment of all they wanted her to know.

    To me it would be a fools errand for her to play the J’Accuse game if she was not there watching the Benghazi attack unfolding in real time. I can honestly say, I cannot for the life of me think that Hillary or Bill could have stood there watching helplessly while a friend, Chris Stevens and knowingly along with the 3 former Seals, Smith, Wood and Doherty staring death squarely in the face and refused to send them the Help they needed to live to fight another day.. Hillary and Bill are as American as we are… we also know, 2 of the decision makers are not home grown Americans. This tragedy lies at their feet.. I do not believe for a minute these 4 brave Americans will not rise again another day to reclaim their blood from the hands that put them there.. You can mark my words on that.. it will happen.

  12. January 23, 2013 1:41 pm

    You can categorize my analysis as The Back Story.. after you read the account of this writer responding to Hillary’s testimony. It’s not what Hillary said, it’s what she couldn’t say because she wasn’t present along with Obama, Panetta and Jarrett during the Benghazi attack. Hillary can’t say or prove the trio are culpable because they had her tied up and out of the loop on Benghazi until long after the fact. How can she point a finger at them if she wasn’t there? If she did, it would be designated as pure speculation or hearsay on her part and subjective evidence useless for proving allegations. Hillary would be torn to shreds in a matter of minutes by the trio’s defense attorneys.

    You have to pick your battles- play them out to conclusion and judge for yourself your chances of winning. If the Gods are on your side, you go full steam ahead. If not, you wait for another day when witnesses and incontrovertible evidence comes forward that will make the case for you. And your chances improve 100% for making the Truth stick! Today is not the day for that battle. The upside is this… That day will come. It came for Nixon with the surprise Nixon’s Watergate conspiracy was recorded on audio tapes. Justice will come for the guilty. As those 4 patriotic souls will not rest until the Truth is out.


    Clinton takes responsibility in Benghazi attack, clashes with Republicans

    By Tom Curry, National Affairs Writer, NBC News

    Updated at 11:40a.m. ET:

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the Senate ForeignRelations Committee she took responsibility for not adequately protecting U.S. personnel in the Sept. 11 attack on a diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in the killing of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

    Defending her administration’s immediate handling of the attack, Clinton clashed at times with Republicans over the account the administration gave in the initial days after Sept. 11. She told Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, a Republican, “we did not have a clear picture” of all that was going on in Benghazi although she did acknowledge that senators had “legitimate questions” about the administration’s account.

    Sen. John McCain, R- Ariz., — after telling Clinton “we are proud of you” and that all over the world “you are viewed with admiration and respect” — delivered a blistering criticism of the Obama administration’s handling of the events in Libya.

    “There are many questions that are unanswered and the answers you’ve given this morning are frankly not satisfactory to me,” McCain told Clinton. He added “the American people and the families of these four brave Americans still haven’t gotten the answers they deserve.”

    He asked Clinton whether she was aware of numerous warnings from Stevens and other Americans in Libya that the facility in Benghazi was not capable of resisting a sustained assault. He also said there had been other warning signs such as an attack on the British ambassador to Libya.

    He angrily asked Clinton why Defense Department forces were not nearby to defend the Benghazi facility.

    Last month a report issued by the Accountability Review Board (ARB) appointed by Clinton, blamed State Department officials for “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies” that led to protection for the Benghazi facility that was “grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.”

    In her response to McCain, Clinton said, as she did to other senators on the panel, that some additional information on the causes and circumstances of the attack is in the classified portions of the report issued by the ARB. Senators and Senate staff can read the classified portions of the ARB report, but the public cannot.

    And she blamed members of Congress for holding up additional aid to Libya that might make the country more secure and less chaotic.

    In his questioning of Clinton, Sen. Rand Paul, R- Ky., told her, “I’m glad that you’re accepting responsibility. I think that ultimately with your leaving, you accept the culpability for the worst tragedy since 9/11, and I really mean that. Had I been president at the time and I found that you did not read the cables from Benghazi, you did not read the cables from Ambassador Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post.”

    He added, “It’s a failure of leadership” which cost the Americans in Benghazi their lives. “I think it’s good that you’re accepting responsibility– because no one else is.”

    Paul also argued that U.S. personnel ought to never have been sent to Benghazi “in a war zone” without a military guard. “You shouldn’t send them in with the same kind of embassy staff that you have in Paris,” he added.

    Clinton replied that all four State Department officials criticized in the ARB report for their roles on the Benghazi events had been removed from their jobs and placed on administrative leave. “The ARB (report) made very clear that the level of responsibility for the failures that they outlined was set at the assistant secretary level and below.”

    The furor over the Benghazi attack helped derail one possible nominee to replace Clinton at the State Department, UN ambassador Susan Rice, whom Republicans assailed for using administration talking points that portrayed the incident as a spontaneous response to an inflammatory anti-Islamic video.

    But Clinton told the committee that in the hours and days after the attack, “I was not focused on talking points” and “I wasn’t involved in the talking points process.”

    But she said Rice and the Obama administration did not try to mislead the American people about the cause of the attacks. “Nothing could be further from the truth,” she said as she sparred with Sen. Ron Johnson, R- Wisc.

    She angrily told Johnson that at this stage it did not really matter what the precise origins or motives of the attack were: “What difference at this point does it make?”

    In her opening statement, Clinton told the committee, “As I have said many times since September 11, I take responsibility. Nobody is more committed to getting this right. I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger, and more secure.”

    Clinton’s voice choked with emotion as she recalled the return of “those flag-draped caskets” from the Americans killed in Benghazi and put her arms “around the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters” of those killed.

    Clinton also used her testimony to deliver a vigorous call for continued U.S. involvement in the North African nation of Mali where the Obama administration is aiding French efforts to defeat Islamic jihadist forces.

    She told the committee that the United States cannot allow Mali to become a safe haven for the group Al Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), warning of the risk of AQIM attacks on the United States itself.

    Clinton also said she could not confirm reports that some of the terrorists involved in last week’s Algeria hostage taking were also involved in the Benghazi attack but called it a “new thread” to follow.

    She did say that there is no doubt that Algerian terrorists have weapons they obtained from depots in Libya that were opened up and “liberated” after the dictator Moammar Gadhafi was toppled, with U.S. and NATO help, in 2011.

    Clinton said she had accepted the ARBs recommendations for improvements in security procedures and had asked her subordinates “to ensure that all 29 of them are implemented quickly and completely.” She said these changes are designed to “reduce the chances of another Benghazi happening again.”

    Clinton will also testify about the Benghazi episode Wednesday afternoon before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

    On Thursday the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold its confirmation hearing for Clinton’s successor, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who is the committee’s chairman and is likely to be confirmed without any opposition.

  13. JanH permalink
    January 23, 2013 3:30 pm

    As far as Rand Paul is concerned, I don’t think there is a bigger idiot around. His idea of truth and consequences is a joke. His ego, his lack of knowledge, and his full-of-himself image is well known. His comments on Israel and foreign aid alone are subject to self-ridicule. He wants Hillary to leave with a huge black mark on her back. He wants America to forget all the good she has done and blame her for, as he called it, the worst event since 911, Benghazi.

    And as far as Hillary pointing the finger at obama or anyone else, please explain to me why these unethical cowards are letting her take all the hits instead of stepping forward?

    I have no doubt that bambi and a few others screwed up Bengazi completely. I also doubt that they listened to Hillary’s suggestions and moreover were more concerned with the twit’s re-election chances than 4 noble human beings who died on that very sad day.

    Here we have obama having just said in speeches around the country that terrorism was dying, Al Queda wasn’t an issue anymore. So does anyone really think that he wanted to be branded a liar?

    And then comes Hurricane Sandy and the antichrist is ressurected and voted in for another blasted term.

  14. January 23, 2013 5:16 pm


    “And as far as Hillary pointing the finger at obama or anyone else, please explain to me why these unethical cowards are letting her take all the hits instead of stepping forward?”

    The story I posted earlier this morning asking the hard questions by the CBS journalist Sharyl Attkisson, doesn’t hold Hillary responsible for Benghazi. Attkisson has been on this story from the minute it broke and the questions she is asking are directed to Obama.

    I was surprised at Ulsterman’s notations that Hillary was aware of the questions to be asked beforehand, as if it was something out of the ordinary when testifying in a hearing. As much as I love Ulsterman, Hillary was there to give her account/testimony of what happened beginning on the afternoon of September 11, 2012 in Benghazi. Hillary wasn’t on Trial. She was there to give her recollections of the happenings on that day and late into the same evening as she remembered them. For all intents and purposes after hearing her testimony, she was out of the loop on Benghazi involved with other issues mainly the ongoing violence in Cairo.

    I think Ulsterman jumped the shark on this story. He must have been hoping like many probably did, Hillary was going to provide the silver bullet hanging the blame where it belongs on the Trifecta Trio. It didn’t happen. Hopefully, Ulsterman will see the facts as they stand and reconsider the unwarranted harshness of his opinion casting aspersions on Hillary because she used a tabbed referenced notebook recalling the words she intended to use answering the questions the best she could to the senators inquiries.

  15. January 23, 2013 5:32 pm


    I meant to congratulate you yesterday on Bibi’s re-election. Alls I can say about this is at least one thing has gone right for the World. I did notice in the video clips, they use paper ballots!

  16. January 23, 2013 7:00 pm

    Excellent and interesting analysis, Tell.

  17. January 23, 2013 7:46 pm

    thanks, basil.. I feeli like we’ve been transported to the Tundra. WM saying tomorrow will feel like -12 to -17 below zero… where’s the global warming…we could use a +50 or so degrees just to get back to normal.

    This is the first time I’ve seen Telly come in from outside not panting, it’s so cold here.

    How is it where you are?

  18. January 23, 2013 7:57 pm

    It is freezing and tomorrow is my stable day. Oh well. Once I start working I warm right up. Amazing the horsies can tolerate this weather. Sal bundles hem up in their blankies.

  19. January 23, 2013 10:10 pm

  20. January 23, 2013 10:31 pm

    “It is freezing and tomorrow is my stable day. Oh well. Once I start working I warm right up. Amazing the horsies can tolerate this weather. Sal bundles hem up in their blankies.”

    Basil, truthfully, I don’t miss running out to the barn @ 6:30am to feed and water the critters in the winter time. In my little red 5 stall barn, the water buckets were never frozen as they were in the larger much airier barn housing 9 stalls having a sliding door to the wind on the North side. When the horses were stalled up for more than a few days having no turn out because of perpetual storms. The trick was getting them turned out in the indoor at liberty and still having your body intact after swinging a Tiger by the tail for the 50′ walking them up one by one slowly to the arena. Then they became comical. Racing each other around the soft sandy perimeter kicking up their heels bucking and standing straight up bellowing ” We’re Free!”

    That in spite of the fact we cut their ration of grain in half cutting back on energy they could never need or spend due to their forced confinement. I don’t miss the work but I do miss them. Maybe someday…

  21. January 24, 2013 8:53 am

  22. January 24, 2013 9:01 am

    Yesterday, after the main event was over, they ran a crawler saying the hearings could be seen Thursday starting at 8:30pm on C-Span.

    Then I caught a blog post saying the hearings were on again last night at 8:30pm..
    well, by then it was 10:45pm and the Senate hearings were over but the House hearings were in progress, which is what I wanted to see… I will try again tonight wondering how much I missed last night.

  23. January 24, 2013 9:05 am

    I hope Hillary plans on leaving Kerry a blueprint for all the new policies she want to see implemented.. and a map of the ME countries, well because… Gilligan…

  24. January 24, 2013 9:24 am


    Forget all the questions, hearings and BS… This is the ONLY question that needs and answer!


  25. January 24, 2013 10:13 am

    @ minute 5:22 on that video… West explains in clear concise language the chain of command when the president gives an execute order to send help to the Americans in Libya, Greta jumps in and obfuscates his train of thought a little confusing West asking repetitive questions rather than repeating verbatim what West is telling her and reinforcing what he just told her. That is: “The president “GIVES THE ORDER”, the ORDER is written down by the National Security Council Adviser”… and the Joint Chiefs follow through deciding what assets from where will be sent to help out Americans in distress.

    What Bing West is saying is, He wants to see the written order to execute the president’s directive to send HELP to Benghazi… supposedly, now, what Obama is claiming IS, he did GIVE THE ORDER to send HELP when our Ambassador was pleading for help.


    West also let the cat out of the bag- @ 4:33 Hillary did send help (in spite of the stand down order) The State Dept did send a plane carrying 6 Americans to help the distressed Ambassador and the 3 former Seals who risked all to protect the Ambassador. (I just knew it..I just did.. I hope this shocker puts all the judgmental naysayers to SHAME!)


    anyone reading this… PLEASE, send this video to every blog you know and get this information out there… The military is willing to stand up to OBAMA.. PLEASE HELP THEM DO IT!

  26. January 24, 2013 11:23 am



  1. China Will Trade Debt for US Land… | cornelilioi

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: