Coalition of the Bribed Part II: Is the $700 Billion To Buy China's Consent for a US-Iran War?

[McCamy Taylor]

Part I: China Owns Us and Our Debt

China has invested heavily in our bad debt.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=15&entry_id=30044

China is deeply invested in U.S. government debt; as of just over a year ago, "China owned $376 billion of debt issued by U.S. government agencies, principally Fannie and Freddie.

No problem, you say? China is still the world’s cash cow, since

estimated to total some $1.8 trillion, China's foreign-exchange reserves, "are the biggest in the world."

Not so fast. China is having some financial problems of its own.

From an Aug. 20, 2008 article called “Chinese Stocks Still in Trouble.” Worldwide inflation and economic slowdown have effected even China’s markets which have experienced inflation, decreased growth and earnings. If the U.S. markets continue to get worse, China’s market are going to get worse. The individual members of the Bush administration and the NeoCons will still be rich if they allow this country to plunge into a Depression (by now, there money is all invested in other countries and in real estate in other countries), but if they let the U.S. turn into the Titanic, we take China with us.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/the-ticker/2008/8/20/chinese-stocks-still-in-trouble.html

Up until now, the only two things standing in the way of a Wolfowitz/NeoCon engineered first strike against Iran (with Israel dropping the bomb) have been Russia and China, both economic partners of that oil rich country.

II. The “Economic Meltdown” Is Starting to Remind Me Iraq’s WMDs, with Henry Paulson Playing Colin Powell

The media circus surrounding the so called Bailout for the Economic Meltdown are exactly like the media circus which the administration staged six years ago when it told lies about Saddam’s WMDs that were going to fry us in our beds, with thirty minutes warning. Look at the language. “Meltdown”. That is what nuclear reactors do. “Crisis.” As in Go ahead and panic! . The administration insists that we must do something now about the results of predatory lending and bad mortgage debt, even though, as Eliot Spitzer warned us last Valentine’s Day in a Washington Post editorial, for the last five years, the Bush administration has been actively preventing the states from interfering whenever mortgage houses engage in predatory lending. Obama is accused of being unpatriotic if he does not support the bailout, which is the only way to preserve civilization as we know it. Doesn’t he understand the terra-ists----excuse me, the creditors are knocking at the door? Isn’t he scared ?

(Ignore the fact that John McCain is against the bailout. His objections are all right wing, conservative ideological, and therefore, he is allowed to have them, since presumably ideology trumps common sense in this country. Anyone who questions the double standard in how the two candidates are treated on this subject is accused of interjecting “politics” into this terrible, awful crisis.)


Since I would not want to do anything as reprehensible as interject politics into this very serious issue of how we are fixing to spend almost a trillion dollars of us money with no Congressional or taxpayer oversight , I will return to the issue at hand. The administration is in full Be afraid. Be very afraid. Be so afraid you pee your pants! mode. And they are in a rush. They don’t want us to look too closely at what it is that we are about to sign.

The devil doesn’t want you to look to closely, either, when you are about to sign away your soul.

I smell a rat. What is the hurry? Does it have something to do with the clock ticking out on the Bush-Cheney administration? What was the number one priority of these guys before they came into office? Hint: Project for a New American Century

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

In relation to the Persian Gulf, citing particularly Iraq and Iran, Rebuilding America's Defenses states that "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification , the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region."

Well, hell! These guys were planning to invade Iran all along! Times running out for the oil company execs that are the puppet masters for the NeoCons. You know, people like David Rockefeller, who would be running Standard Oil if they had not forced them to pretend to break it up into several baby oil companies. They got away with invading and occupying Iraq (for 100 years they hope). They only have three months left to invade Iran.

As I said before, there are only two things standing in their way. Not Congress. Bush figures he can do whatever he wants and Congress will roll over, afraid to look “weak on terror.” The American people can not stop Israel from launching a first strike, and if Iran strikes back, enough Americans will want to protect Israel that the administration should be able to sell the war to Congress. The military may hem and haw, but they will go along with the American people. Iran may not strike back, but hey, that is one of the risks they have to take.

The two things standing in their way up until now have been Russia___and they think they took care of the Russian problem with the staged war in Georgia this summer, in which John McCain proclaimed “We are all Georgians!” and the NeoCons tried to jump start the Cold War. When Israel attacks the brand new nuclear power plant in Iran, the one which will be full of Russian technical advisers, the U.S. government will say (in effect) Sucks to be Russians . However, the U.S. can not have such a cavalier attitude towards China, which owns us .

So, I wonder if hidden in that $700 billion no strings attached and you can not question me about it later or sue me bailout is a plan to buy off China.

III. How the U.S. Bought the Coalition of the Bribed for the Iraq Invasion

Everyone needs to read this scholarly, well researched but also well written paper called

'Coalition of the Bribed?' US Economic Linkage and the Iraq War Coalition. Full text is available online here.

http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/9/5/9/pages99593/p99593-1.php

The author, Dr. Randall E. Newnham analyzes the different strategies which the Bush administration used to bribe nations into supporting the Iraq War in 2003. A surprising number of countries got direct cash payouts. The larger the countries, the bigger the bribes. The section on economic aid starts on page nine. For example:

Columbia, $574.6 million; Afghanistan, $550 million; Turkey, $255.6 million; Georgia,$89.9 million; the Philippines, $89.7 million; Ethiopia, $58.9 million; and Uzbekistan, $57.5 million.

These were for “little countries”. The U.S. was willing to go much higher for the participation of important players, like Turkey.

In last 2002 and early 2003, as the invasion of Iraq loomed, US planners
desperately wanted to force Saddam into a two front war. In addition to the main attack
from the south, they hoped to send a full division into Iraq from the north. However,
Turkey refused to permit this. The war was deeply unpopular there, and in addition, the
US troops would be assisting the Kurds of northern Iraq, a group distrusted by the Turks.
To overcome this resistance Washington offered an aid package of epic scope. Figures as high as $26 billion were mentioned, an amount substantially larger than the entire annual US ODA budget.

Israel got a billion in aid, Egypt and Jordan each got almost half a billion just for not raising a big stink.

None of these countries had anywhere near the political, economic or military clout of China.

(Note: the article also contains analysis of other tools that were used including special trade favors, U.S. military bases, reconstruction contracts and other economic bribes that were employed to create the impression that we had allies in our colonial venture in Iraq. Particularly ironic was the ploy of promising countries that their old Iraq debts would be paid after the invasion, something we now know the U.S. occupiers had no intention of doing, since this would put the foreign oil companies at risk of international lawsuit by Saddam’s old debtors in places like the United States.)

This article is a great read. Highly recommended.

IV. How to Buy China’s Acquiescence for a U.S War With Iran With Half a Trillion Dollars

This is real simple. Give your Treasury Secretary close to a trillion dollars to spend however he wants settling the massive debts that have been incurred by the U.S. mortgage and investment industry from its greedy, illegal and deceptive practices. Have him tell China “You want to get taken care of or you want me to declare that my first priority is taking care of domestic investors?”

If I were China, I would look the other way when Israel drops the bombs on the new nuclear reactor in Iran, even if it is packed with a thousand innocent Russian techs.

Think about it. We have all said that Bush would never invade Iran....why? What country have we all counted upon to put its foot down on him if he ever decides to act upon the other big NeoCon plan?

China

[tama]

1. Don't think so

China would have to also buy that debt of 700 hundred insanely huge ones on top of what they allready have bought in US treasuries threatened by dollar meltdown and I doubt they would be happy about that. Even China does not have bottomless purse to keep US afloat.

[galileoreloaded]

9. japan is actually our largest creditor..n/t

[bertman]

2. Doesn't sound so farfetched to me.

[curious one]

3. This will not do. China-Iran relationship is much deeper than we can see.

[McCamy Taylor]

7. China wants Iraq-Iran oil. They have no ideological ties. They also wants GOP control of the US.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080901faessay87508/yoichi-funabashi/keeping-up-with-asia.html

The Chinese leadership leans in the same direction, although for different reasons: it sees the Republican Party as the party of free trade and the Democratic Party as protectionist; it also believes that a Republican administration in Washington would be less likely to dwell on human rights issues or meddle in sensitive areas such as Tibet. For many of the governments in Asia, a Republican United States is simply more predictable and thus easier to deal with.

Re: China's recent investment in Iraq and its "ties" with Iran, this is all about opportunism---it needs oil and both Iraq and Iran need a big watchdog to protect them from the oil hungry U.S.

China's action owes much to its domestic energy needs and overwhelming oil-import dependency, factors that impel to a competitive and focused global economic strategy with strong geopolitical implications. The Iraqi deal is part of a pattern that includes impressive oil-and-gas development agreements with Iran, as well as overtures to Saudi Arabia.

All this, moreover, is being achieved without China having to contemplate sending military forces to the region or facing widespread popular hostility and armed resistance. It is a further example of how the international balance of political and economic power is shifting (see Russia and Iran: crisis of the west, rise of the rest, 21 August 2008).

China's oil-deals, in a region that the United States had come to consider as firmly under its strategic control, represent something that from Washington's perspective was simply not meant to happen. But it is happening. After years of endemic insecurity and war against insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, the shape of a loose axis between China, Iran and Iraq can be discerned. Perhaps the next United States president will find - or be offered - a quick, slick slogan to describe this emerging triple-headed threat.

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch/Detail/?ots591=4888CAA0-B3DB-1461-98B9-E20E7B9C13D4&lng=en&id=91041

Obviously, this author views China's protection of Iraq/Iran for its oil as a threat to the U.S. domination of the region for its oil. However, if you review the interdependence of the Chinese stock market and economy on the U.S. market and economy, you will see that China can be threatened by a U.S. executive branch which is willing to harm its own economy and can be aided greatly by a U.S. executive branch which is willing to give it most favored status in economic matters---and also in its energy policy.

If Republicans and the Bush administration convince China that Democrat Obama will restrict trade with China and enact other measures, China would have another incentive to "look the other way" on Iran---just to help McCain get elected, mind you.

So, I do not agree that the China-Iran ties are so deep. I think the Iran-Russia ties are deeper. And that was why it was Russia that was vilified this summer.

[happygoluckytoyou]

4. the following INFLATION will also send any CHINA $dollars$ into the paper shredder

[paparush]

5. I've been curious about the timing of Gramm introducing his Deregulation Riders and the PNAC

publishing "Rebuilding America's Defenses". The timing of the two stinks.

[McCamy Taylor]

6. Rachel Maddow says this "emergency bailout" has been in the work for months....

This makes it even fishier. Who plans to ask for half a trillion dollars no strings attached for a market meltdown? However, if the plan all along was to set aside enough money to bribe China to look the other way in the event of a conflict with Iran (which China would be told was to be a limited engagement, just to help McCain get elected, though we know that the plan would be for a long term occupation for the oil), then this plan makes sense.

Come on guys. Who would have thought that Bush-Cheney planned to spend half a trillion dollars in Iraq and still be there five years later with no plans to leave? Ever. You have to think like a NeoCon. They do not think about things like inflation or world markets or economic forces. They think about how they can get away with invading sovereign countries which possess oil.

[Blue Diadem]

10. The global bankers got together in April, the estimated amt. was 945 billion

loss over two years. I don't think it's a bribe.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/g7-government-officials-top-global/story.aspx?guid=%7B53CAC551-50CB-4BE1-BF28-E6FBAB675C2C%7D



http://www.fsforum.org/publications/r_0804.pdf

74 page doc. lists causes and weaknesses and recommendations.

[McCamy Taylor]

11. So it WAS the foreign investors who chose the amount. You won't hear the WH

tell the tax payer that they want all that money because the foreign investors asked for it. And I still say that Cheney would thumb his nose at the foreign investors if he didn't want something from them, i.e. their acquiescence in the matter of the invasion of Iran.

Dick Cheney is crazy. Gotta think like a crazy man.

[McCamy Taylor]

8. On the other hand, maybe China is just MAKING Paulson bleed us dry to recoup their losses....

Check out this article about why Bush bailed out Freddie and Fannie. Hint: It is because China threatened to pull its trillions out of the dollar, making our money worthless if we did not make good on their investment.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/95160-foreign-bondholders-drove-the-fannie-freddie-bailout

For anyone who still doubted the growing global influence of such emerging powerhouses as China, consider this: The U.S. government’s decision to take control of foundering mortgage giants Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) was driven not by worries about the fading U.S. housing market, but by concerns that foreign central banks in China, Japan, Europe, the Middle East and Russia might stop buying our bonds.

snip

And yet, that wasn’t the mortgage market itself that forced the hand of U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. “Hank” Paulson: It was the $5.2 trillion in so-called Fannie and Freddie “agency debt” - of which more than $1.3 trillion, or about 25%, was held by foreign investors. Total U.S. agency debt of all types was said to be slightly more than $1.5 trillion.

Without the bailout, China’s financial position may have been damaged: Of that country’s $1.8 trillion in foreign currency reserves, as much as 70% is held in dollar-denominated assets.

With $376 billion in GSE debt, China was also the top holder of the bonds issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

If China were to lose confidence in the U.S. currency - dumping the dollar - it’s hard to say with certainty just how bad things could get. Should foreign investors rampantly discard the dollar, the greenback would plunge against other currencies.

snip

Tine Olsen, an economist with Moody’s/Economy.com, wrote in a recent research note that because “the debt issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is now essentially backed by the U.S. Treasury, holders no longer need to fear losing their investments. A great sigh of relief will have reverberated through the markets in Asia when the U.S. Treasury injection of capital was announced.”

Such views of approval are by no means universal, however. Capital to finance the bailout will have to come from somewhere.

However, I still think China would have to offer Cheney something that he wanted and I do not think he gives a rat's ass what happens to the rest of us once he leaves office.

This ought to tell us where a lot of the money is going. It will not be going to pay anyone's mortgage or to protect anyone's retirement. It will be going to protect the interest of those people who own us. We are going to pay the taxes that we earned that were supposed to be spent on social services for us keeping the people who are enslaving us rich and powerful while we grow even more desperate and bankrupt.