War With China: What Hillary Told Goldman

by | Oct 19, 2016 | Articles | 12 comments

nif_hillarygoldmanby James Corbett
The International Forecaster
October 19, 2016

The text of Hillary Clinton’s speeches to Goldman Sachs have now been published. Go ahead, read them for yourself. It’s perfectly legal to do so, despite what the mainstream media liars would like you to believe.

When you do, you will find a transcript of an interesting conversation between Hillary and Lloyd Blankfein (yes, that Lloyd Blankfein) that took place in October 2013 at Goldman’s “Builders and Innovators Summit” in Arizona. After drawing on her expertise to enlighten the audience about diplomatic hotspots and trends in American foreign policy, Clinton focuses in on the South China Sea:

“48 percent of the world’s trade, obviously that includes energy but includes everything else, goes through the South China Sea.  Some of you may have seen the long article in the New York Times Magazine on the South China Sea this past weekend, an issue that I worked on for the entire time was in the State Department because China basically wants to control it.  You can’t hold that against them.  They have the right to assert themselves.  But if nobody’s there to push back to create a balance, then they’re going to have a chokehold on the sea lanes and also on the countries that border the South China Sea.”


Click for full size

In conveying her arguments with the Chinese about their claims to the South China Sea, she tells the crowd that the US has a claim to all of the Pacific: “We liberated it, we defended it.[…]And we could call it the American Sea, and it could go from the West Coast of California all the way to the Philippines!”

But it is in a separate conversation about China, this time at Goldman’s June 2013 “IBD CEO Annual Conference” in South Carolina, that Clinton lays bare the extent of America’s imperial hubris in the Asia-Pacific. Discussing Washington’s strategy for dealing with China in the context of the growing North Korean missile threat, Clinton confessed that:

“We’re going to ring China with missile defense. We’re going to put more of our fleet in the area.”

Needless to say, the idea of “ring[ing] China with missile defense” is nothing new to anyone…least of all the Chinese. In fact, the story of the US military’s highly controversial deployment of a “THAAD” (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) system in South Korea is literally ripped from today’s headlines. But whereas that deployment has always been framed as a necessary counter to North Korea’s growing military capabilities, no one has been under any delusions about which way these “defense” systems are pointing. But now we have Clinton admitting in her own words that this is part of a strategy to “ring China,” making future US-China diplomacy a tad more uncomfortable (to say the least).

clintonxiNow let’s be clear; absolutely none of this is in the least bit surprising. It isn’t shocking, or some top level secret, or some piece of Machiavellian behind-the-scenes manipulation that Clinton doesn’t want you to know about. In fact, it is nothing but a restatement of Clinton’s infamous 2009 announcement of America’s “Asia-Pacific Pivot,” the US government’s plan to refocus its attention on its Pacific “partners” (i.e. enemies, frenemies and imperial subjects)…that was immediately derailed and overshadowed by the illegal wars of aggression in Libya and Syria.

But this is the point: It is a restatement and seeming re-commitment to that plan, four years after its announcement and one year after Clinton stepped down as Secretary of State. Clinton’s tight focus on China and the South China Sea naval disputes in particular tell us that the Asia-Pacific Pivot is still very much a priority for the soon-to-be-annointed “leader of the free world.” And from the perspective of the average Chinese person, that must sound like a not-so-thinly-veiled threat.


  1. Can anyone please point out to me at least 1 or 2 things in these “leaked emails” that reveal anything new, anything that we already didn’t know?

    I even scoured pro Trump sites like Drudge and InfoWars and could find nothing new.

    One would think there would be at least one real juicy tidbit that would have been released from these email leaks given tonight is the 3rd and final debate.

    It’s a if we are supposed to gasp at the mere mention of the words “leaked emails”.

    • Yeah, I didn’t think there was anything either, it was kinda of a rhetorical question anyway.

      Listening to Alex Jones today, a Trump supporting mouthpiece, saying Hillary represents the Communist Chinese…hahaha! Talk about having all your bases covered, she wants War with China yet represents China! Funny and sad.

    • Do you mean from the Podesta leaks specifically, or the recent Wikileaks dumps,or something else?

      • Honestly, I’m a little confused by it all, so I guess all of them.

        • Well, I’ve just finished watching the debate, and nothing, zip, nada. Except, Trump did mention the 30 000 deleted emails, but no specifics about all the other emails.

        • 1) I think the biggest thing coming out from the DNC leak in July was the evidence confirming the bias by some people at the top of the DNC, towards Clinton during the primaries (this article is a good jumping off point, also mentions the Guccifer2 leaks). Without these data points we would still be parsing cryptic little hints like these. Several people from the DNC stepped down over these leaks.

          Then, thanks to these leaks and the Podesta leak, we learned that the “neutral” interim chair Donna Brazile, was actually a Hillary surrogate, and that she leaked questions from a town hall to the Clinton campaign. The media is absolutely horrified about this I tell you!

          Anyways, all this has led to a lawsuit against the DNC for violating it’s bylaws which James wrote about the other day. DNC lawyers are now arguing to have the case dismissed on several grounds including the fact that the bylaws, including neutrality, are merely “political promises,” not meant to be kept.

          2) The Podesta and DNC emails are starting to lend some credence to some of the Project Veritas reporting on voter fraud and paid provocateurs used during the election.

          Leaving aside the partisan political aspects of these stories, we are getting a raw look at some disturbing issues with American gov’t & politics in general. Coziness of the media with political power. Political fakery. Elections being dog and pony shows. While it may not be news to us, many are getting a taste of some bad medicine their first time on the merry-go-round.

          The Veritas stuff on the agitators is even more explosive. Boil it down and we are looking at tiny little false-flags and strategy of tension scenarios. Instead of dismissing these stories, we should use them as data points. Just look at the underlying themes: false-flags get used because they are an effective method of manipulation. Political operatives don’t care about ethics or legality, they just want to win. They don’t care if people get hurt during these types of operations.

          I could keep ranting but I’m out of time, look forward to response.

          One more bonus story from the leaks: I was genuinely surprised to find out the State Dept. considers Matt Lee a “friendly” journalist. He always seems antagonistic if you watch any of the State pressers.

          • It’s gonna that me some time to go over your post and links, however I should be able to leave a reply by Sunday 🙂

          • It is to bad, because if it wasn’t for Superdelegates, Bernie Sanders would have won, however we didn’t need wikileaks to figure this out.

            “… and that she leaked questions from a town hall to the Clinton campaign. and that she leaked questions from a town hall to the Clinton campaign.” — again, not trying to poopoo this, but I think most of us knew this sort of thing is common place for both political parties.

            …If you watched the 3rd political debate you would have noticed that Fox News Chris Wallace handed some soft balls questions Trump’s way, and when Hillary was required to answer first, the questions were tricky 2nd amendment and supreme court justice questions, needless to say she was either well prepared or she was leaked the questions beforehand.

            Let’s pause here for bit…if both political parties are controlled by lets say Soros, then why even bother leaking questions if it don’t matter who wins the Presidency since both Hillary and Trump are Soros puppets?

            “Voter fraud and paid provocateurs” — In order for Trump to win he needs to win Pennsylvania, Florida and Colorado. http://www.businessinsider.com/animated-map-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-president-election-electoral-college-2016-10

            Seriously, if Trump wins, then yeah, I think we can safely say Voter fraud and paid provocateurs helped Trump.

  2. I watched your video regarding China and the New World Order,and I was wondering how the ruling elite families of China feel about this?.Was this part of the plan all along,or has the US done some backstabbing.

Submit a Comment


Become a Corbett Report member