Qatar, Where Obama Nurtures Terrorism

In 2013, Obama declared: I extend my best wishes to His Highness Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani as he assumes his new role as the Amir of Qatar.  Qatar is an important partner of the United States, and we look forward to further strengthening our cooperation in the years ahead.  I also extend my appreciation to His Highness Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani for his friendship and leadership.  The United States looks forward to working with Sheikh Tamim to deepen the ties between our two countries, and to continue our close partnership on issues of mutual interest.

The Taliban 5 were released to Qatar who are free to move about the country. Qatar funds Hamas.

In part from the Washington Institute:

When Emir Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani visits the White House on February 24, President Obama will have to contend with a Qatari diplomatic scorecard that has significant marks on both sides of the ledger. Given its historically awkward relations with neighboring Saudi Arabia and its shared ownership with Iran of the world’s largest offshore natural gas field, Qatar looks to the United States as its main security guarantor. That has suited the U.S. military, which has used the giant al-Udeid Air Base outside Doha for operations over Iraq and Afghanistan. But Qatar, with a population of around two million, of which only some 10 percent are citizens, has an often quirky tendency to demonstrate its independence. Past sins include parading Stinger missiles illegally acquired from Afghanistan mujahedin, allowing its Aljazeera satellite television channel to broadcast inflammatory and false reports that led to American deaths, and financing terrorism.
Indeed, as deputy CIA chief David Cohen told a Washington audience last March while serving as the Treasury Department’s undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, “Distressingly, Iran is not the only state that provides financial support for terrorist organizations. Most notably, Qatar, a longtime U.S. ally, has for many years openly financed Hamas, a group that continues to undermine regional stability. Press reports indicate that the Qatari government is also supporting extremist groups operating in Syria. To say the least, this threatens to aggravate an already volatile situation in a particularly dangerous and unwelcome manner.”

Okay, it is really festering in Qatar with terrorism. So the National Security Council, the White House, the State Department and the United Nations are cool with this?

Qatar’s Rulers Are Still Surrounding Themselves With Some of the Most Hateful Clerics in the Persian Gulf

David Andrew Weinberg
1 July 2015 – Business Insider

The ruler of Qatar, Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, hosted a gaggle of religious leaders at his palace in Doha to break the Ramadan fast on Tuesday of last week.

The emir physically embraced and accorded seats of honor to some of the most hateful clerics in the Gulf, religious leaders who together have a long record of intolerance toward women, Christians, Shiites, and Jews.

Footage from the event showed Tamim kissing the head of iconic Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who was seated even closer to the ruler than his ministers or brother, the deputy emir.

Qaradawi notoriously asked God in a 2009 sermon broadcast on Qatar’s Al Jazeera network to “take the Jews, the treacherous aggressors” and to “count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one.”

He has also chaired a network of charities called the Union of Good that is under US terror finance sanctions on charges of being a front for Hamas. Qaradawi then bragged that he himself had avoided being sanctioned because Tamim’s father, the previous emir, stood up on his behalf.

Qaradawi has ceased giving televised sermons in the country. This was reportedly one of Qatar’s concessions last year to end a diplomatic breach with its Gulf neighbors, a standoff exacerbated by the cleric’s condemnation of those countries’ anti-Brotherhood policies. Yet Qaradawi’s peck from the prince suggests that the hardline preacher still continues to have access to Qatar’s ruling circle.

Qatar’s ruler also embraced a trio of Saudi preachers who were profiled in a March report on Saudi incitement and human rights abuses that I helped write for the nonprofit group Human Rights FirstMohammed al-ArifiAidh al-Qarni, and Nasser al-Omar have a combined 23 million followers on Twitter, in part because of the tolerance or support they receive from Gulf rulers.

Al-Arifi was recorded last Tuesday exchanging kisses with Tamim and speaking into his ear. Also last week, Qatar’s Ministry of Islamic Affairs and Endowments announced it was “delighted to invite” guests to several events featuring Arifi at Qatar’s massive state-controlled Grand Mosque.

Yet Mohammed al-Arifi has been accused of describing Shiites as “non-believers who must be killed,” and of decrying them for “treachery” and “evil.”

The Middle East Media Research Institute says he has also proclaimed “one’s devotion to jihad for the sake of Allah and one’s will to shed blood, smash skulls, and chop off body parts … constitute an honor for the believer.” On Al Jazeera he called Osama bin Laden a “sheikh” and insisted members of Al Qaeda “do not tolerate bloodshed.” According to Saudi women’s rights activist Eman al-Nafjan, Arifi has also delivered guidance on how to beat one’s wife.

Another Saudi preacher who exchanged kisses with Tamim that same evening was Aidh Abdullah al-Qarni, who was visiting the country to deliver several lectures for Ramadan. Qarni has previously stated that when Jews and Christians claim God loves them, “they are lying, Allah’s wrath upon them.” He also has hailed fighters of the US-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization Hamas as holy warriors, and maligned Jews as “the brothers of apes and pigs.”

Finally, Saudi preacher Nasser al-Omar was also photographed holding hands with a grinning Tamim and sitting next to Qatar’s Minister for Islamic Affairs and Endowments.

According to CNN Arabic, al-Omar once sought a meeting with the Saudi king to warn against “the danger” of granting women the right to drive, which the preacher warned would “open the door of evil.” He also allegedly signed a petition in 2008 that called the “Shi[ite] sect an evil among the sects of the Islamic nation, and the greatest enemy and deceivers of the Sunni people.”

On his website, al-Omar endorsed the Islamic Front in Syria in 2013, even though one of the group’s leaders had already advocated ethnic cleansing of Shiites and Alawites, and its members had possibly participated in the summary execution of Alawite villagers.

Raising further questions about the Qatari government’s views and priorities, on June 28th the country’s prime minister graced with his presence a lecture by another Saudi cleric, Salman al-Oudah, who has suggested that Jews eat human blood in their Passover matzah.

On the most recent anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Qatar agreed to participate in a coalition against the Islamic State, specifically pledging to repudiate the group’s hateful ideology.

Perhaps it is time for Washington to remind Qatar of its commitment.

Obama Concessions to Iran Began in 2008

When one takes a macro view and goes back in time, the clues were there as proven when the United States sent an envoy to Venezuela for the funeral of Chavez, or when Obama himself received a book from the Venezuelan leader.

Laying the ground work, Obama while on the campaign trail in 2008 reached out to Iran by dispatching an envoy to Tehran. A letter was also passed on from Barack Obama to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.  Then in 2009, Obama announced plans to begin talks with Iran and Ahmadinejad without ‘preconditions’.

The communications continued without notice or fanfare even as yet another letter sent to Iran in 2014 from Obama invited talks about the nuclear deal and Islamic State. President Barack Obama secretly wrote to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the middle of last month and described a shared interest in fighting Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria, according to people briefed on the correspondence.

The letter appeared aimed both at buttressing the campaign against Islamic State and nudging Iran’s religious leader closer to a nuclear deal.

If one thinks there was or is no strategy, guess again. The strategy began in 2008 and it was to side with Iran and cave to all their requests and interests. Those interests include Syria, Lebanon. Venezuela, Cuba and perhaps even more.

Michael Ledeen, an Iran and Middle East expert recently wrote:

The actual strategy is detente first, and then a full alliance with Iran throughout the Middle East and North Africa. It has been on display since before the beginning of the Obama administration. During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.

Ever since, President Obama’s quest for an alliance with Iran has been conducted through at least four channels:  Iraq, Switzerland (the official U.S. representative to Tehran), Oman, and a variety of American intermediaries, the most notable of whom is probably Valerie Jarrett, his closest adviser. In recent months, Middle Eastern leaders reported personal visits from Ms. Jarrett, who briefed them on her efforts to manage the Iranian relationship. This was confirmed to me by a former high-ranking American official who says he was so informed by several Middle Eastern leaders.

The central theme in Obama’s outreach to Iran is his conviction that the United States has historically played a wicked role in the Middle East, and that the best things he can do for that part of the world is to limit and withdraw American military might and empower our self-declared enemies, whose hostility to traditional American policies he largely shares.

Iran has a long history with Cuba and Venezuela, so reaching renewed diplomatic relations with Cuba and opening mutual embassies should be no surprise when once pays attention to details. It is not unreasonable to question Iran’s early demands of terms of talks and relations where Cuba and Venezuela were part of the conditions. Further, the matter of the Syrian red-line threat made by Obama cannot be dismissed either. Iran has been a deep loyal supporter of Bashir al Assad and Syria, where terror incubates daily.

As noted by Vanessa Lopez: Cuba’s relationships with Iran and Syria have proven to be politically lucrative for the island. Syria has shown itself to be a loyal ally and has increased its political relationship with Cuba over the past five years. Cuba is making great efforts to transform this political relationship into an economically beneficial one; Syria has recently indicated it is willing to engage Cuba more significantly, but it remains to be seen if these statements and memorandums between the two countries will translate into dollars for the Cuban regime. On the other hand, Iran has been completely willing to aid Cuba despite suffering economic losses.

These countries serve to prop up Cuba in the international arena and Iran provides much-needed economic life support. These relationships should be of the utmost concern to the United States, since they place two countries that have been delineated as part of the “axis of evil” closely allied with an anti-American regime only 90 miles off U.S. shores. Cuba’s expertise in espionage and biotechnology can be a significant threat in the hands of these two countries. In its efforts to make Syria an economic supporter, Cuba could be willing to assist it in these areas. Let us not forget also that Cuba was one of the few countries to advocate for the Soviets to use nuclear weapons during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Its ties with a potentially nuclear capable Iran and a resurgent Syria can lead to an unstable situation by our shores – or perhaps more immediately, in Israel and the rest of the Middle East.

Click here for a few headlines between Iran and Cuba since 2013.

Iran Cuba

Cuban envoy calls for broadening ties with Iran
TEHRAN (FNA)- Havana’s Ambassador to Tehran Vladimir Gonzalez called for the further expansion of Iran-Cuba bilateral relations.

Speaking at a press conference in Tehran on Wednesday, the Cuban ambassador pointed to the close relations between Tehran and Havana, and said, “There are extensive grounds for the expansion of the relations between Tehran and Havana.”

Anymore questions on what Barack Obama is really doing?

 

To Stop the Unraveling, Executive Privilege Declared

The obstruction of transparency begins in earnest once again. The State Department released the first court ordered drop of Hillary Clinton’s email from her private server and accounts. It is fascinating reading but a lot of it. At the very beginning of Hillary’s term as Secretary of State, she used Sidney Blumenthal as her ghost front person, the emails define this in undisputed terms.

Speaker Boehner and the Gowdy commission are beyond angry as noted here:

“The Hillary Clinton private emails controversy has new legs and the Democratic frontrunner has only herself to blame,” CNN’s John King reported Sunday. “After the House Select Benghazi Committee released new emails this past week, the Obama State Department was forced to admit it was not in possession of some Clinton emails that clearly discussed department business. … Secretary Clinton can’t definitely prove there aren’t additional things that should have been turned over to the government that were not. She can’t prove that because she erased her private email server without any independent supervision.” Pointing out that Hillary Clinton’s statement that she had turned over all of her work-related emails “is not true,” MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell piled on. “If you care at all about the Freedom of Information Act, which is what liberals should care about here, that was an absolutely unacceptable choice from the start, that she used an email system in that way, and then that she deleted it,” he said Tuesday. “That was to contradict the Freedom of Information Act, Americans’ freedom, the press freedom, to be able to request these kinds of documents.” But it was exactly this accountability and transparency that Hillary Clinton tried so hard to avoid as she performed her taxpayer-funded duties as Secretary of State. That includes periods of time when the Benghazi terrorist attack was front and center, and Sidney Blumenthal was sending her unvetted, unsubstantiated intelligence on Libya. The Obama administration confirmed last week that she deleted specific parts of at least six emails before turning them over to the State Department. What other emails are still missing? More details here.

Here comes the privilege:

In part from the Washington Examiner,

The State Department has informed the House Select Committee on Benghazi that it is withholding “a small number” of documents from investigators on the basis of “important executive branch institutional interests.” The statement, made in a letter from Assistant Secretary of State Julia Frifield to committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy, amounts to a de facto claim of executive privilege.

‘Frifield made the claim in a letter turning over 3,600 pages of Benghazi-related documents from three current and former administration officials: Susan Rice, Jake Sullivan, and Cheryl Mills. Rice, a former United Nations ambassador, is now national security adviser, while Sullivan and Mills are close aides to Hillary Clinton who worked at the department when she was secretary of state’. Many more details here. 

The top emails of interest are noted below.

From Politico:

On Tuesday evening the State Department released approximately 3,000 pages of emails sent by and to Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state, primarily in 2009.

Most of the messages are mundane, featuring anodyne remarks about scheduling or clipped news releases. But a choice few reveal idiosyncrasies and quirks from America’s highest-ranking diplomats, Washington strategists, and politicos — including the presumptive Democratic 2016 presidential front-runner herself.

Here are some highlights:

Colin Powell Jokes About Richard Holbrooke

After Clinton tripped and fractured her elbow in June 2009, one of her predecessors at the State Department sent her an email wishing her well. “Hillary, Is it true that Holbrooke tripped you?” Colin Powell wrote to Clinton, referring to Richard Holbrooke who at the time was serving as President Barack Obama’s special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. “Just kidding. Get better fast, we need you running around.”

John Podesta Rips Off Colin Powell’s Joke

Unwilling to leave the retired four-star general with the last laugh, John Podesta made the same joke in an email only two days later. After wishing the Secretary of State well following her elbow injury, Podesta wrote “PS No matter what anybody says, we refuse to believe that Holbrooke tripped you.”

Grandmother Knows Best

After failing to schedule a late-night phone call with Podesta and rescheduling for the following morning, Hillary Clinton offered the longtime ally a piece of advice before going to bed: “Please wear socks to bed to keep your feet warm.”

Hillary Clinton vs. the Fax Machine

The Secretary of State had an epic battle with the office technology in December 2009. Clinton struggled in an email exchange with aide Huma Abedin to figure out how to establish the fax line. “I thought it was supposed to be off hook to work?” Clinton puzzled.

Keeping the Axe at Bay

After receiving an email from her aide Cheryl Mills with the subject line “axelrod wants your email – remind me to discuss with you if i forget,” Clinton did not respond enthusiastically to the prospect of one of Obama’s top advisers receiving her contact info. “Can you send to him or do you want me to?” Clinton wrote. “Does he know I can’t look at it all day so he needs to contact me thru you or Huma or Lauren during work hours.”

Who Would Criticize Gen. James Jones?

The New York Times’ Mark Landler published an article in May 2009, only a few months into Clinton’s tenure at the State Department, referring to tension between President Obama’s National Security Adviser, retired Gen. James Jones, and the secretary of state. Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines wrote an email to Cheryl Mills, which was forwarded to Clinton, saying that no one in the secretary’s circle could have possibly been Landler’s source. “Someone in her circle is someone like you, or a Jake, or me. And none of us would ever say anything like that,” Reines wrote. “Mark conceded that point and let me know he will be changing the sourcing…It’s a small consolation, but I think a very important one.”

George Packer’s Profile of Richard Holbrooke

In September 2009, as George Packer was deep into his profile of Richard Holbrooke for The New Yorker, Clinton aides emailed back and forth assuring that they were providing the journalist with all of the key facts — and no information that could be damaging to the Secretary of State. “Obviously Richard strayed shall we say from discussion of our strategy,” then-Assistant Secretary of State Philip Crowley wrote. “It ends up being a semi-profile on Richard. I’ll alert the WH. I don’t see anything here that is problematic for the Secretary, but I don’t know that every detail here is correct.”

Clinton responded cryptically, “I know more about this if you wish to discuss.”

Hillary Needs to be Alerted About Bill’s Plans

In 2009 former President Bill Clinton was selected by the United Nations to serve as a special envoy to Haiti. According to emails, Hillary Clinton didn’t find out until it leaked out of the UN. “Wjc said he was going to call hrc but hasn’t had time,” wrote Doug Band, a longtime Clinton aide. “You need to walk this to HRC if she is not gone,” responded Cheryl Mills.

Sid Blumenthal Points Out Denis McDonough’s ‘Trashing Biden

In an email to Clinton, Sid Blumenthal, a longtime Clinton ally, attaches a piece by Jim Hoagland in the Washington Post that he says “nails McDonough for trashing Biden.” At the time Denis McDonough was working on strategic communications for the National Security Council, but he has since been promoted to Obama’s Chief of Staff. Hoagland wrote, “Denis McDonough, my strategic communications man, sold Biden-as-dove brilliantly. Wasn’t somebody just saying I should promote Denis? Maybe it was Denis?”

Clinton’s Late Night Blumenthal Chat

In October 2009, Hillary Clinton sent an email to Sid Blumenthal at 10:35 p.m. asking in the subject line “Are you still awake?” The body of the email read “I will call if you are.” No response from Blumenthal was included.

Clinton Frets about Canceled Meetings with White House

In a June 2009 email with the subject line “No WH mtg,” Hillary Clinton wrote “I arrived for the 10:15 mtg and was told there was no mtg. Matt said they had ‘released’ the time. This is the second time this has happened. What’s up???”

Financing Clinton’s Debt

In an email to longtime Clinton ally Paul Begala, Capricia Marshall, a former senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign wrote that an email contest had raised $500,000, followed by two exclamation points. The money, presumably, went to finance Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign’s debt. “You all are amazing – the world adores you! You put a serious hole in hrc debt! A million thanks!”

If you have the time and inclination, you can read the full first set of released emails here.

 

 

When Do Murders by Illegals Become a Crisis?

A murder a day? The numbers are tracking to be almost accurate as Barack Obama’s prisoner release policy of illegals is killing Americans.

Senator Grassley needs our help as his office is demanding answers. It is also most important to track this bill making its way through the congressional legislative path. The sponsors of this bill are also questionable including Congressman Duncan Hunter, (R-CA).

There are on average 44 murders a day in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Assuming murders by illegal immigrants were prorated as a percentage of the U.S. population, it is not unreasonable to assume one to two murders a day are committed by illegal immigrants.

121 murders attributed to illegals released by Obama administration

Washington Times:

More than 100 immigrants whom the Obama administration released back into the community went on to be charged with subsequent killings, according to government data released Monday that raises more questions about whether immigration authorities are doing enough to detail illegal immigrants awaiting deportation.

In one case, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement acknowledged that its agents didn’t find out about an illegal immigrant’s death threats and court injunctions against him — which should have put him back in detention — until after the man was accused of murder.

That case, involving Apolinar Altamirano, is the latest instance of someone who went through the Obama administration’s deportation system and was released, only to go on to be charged with major crimes.

 

ICE officials say they don’t regularly notify local authorities when they release an immigrant and don’t have a way of finding out from those authorities whether a former detainee gets into trouble with the law, so they didn’t know whether Mr. Altamirano’s $10,000 bond should have been revoked.

“ICE was not aware of the injunctions against Mr. Altamirano until after his January 22, 2015 arrest for first-degree murder, armed robbery and related offenses,” the agency said in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican, and Sen. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican in whose state the killing occurred.

All told, 121 immigrants who were held but eventually released by ICE went on to commit “homicide-related offenses” from 2010 through 2014, the agency said.

It said 33 of those were ordered released by immigration courts and another 24 were released because of a 2001 Supreme Court decision capping the time an immigrant can be detained to six months. But a majority of the releases were at ICE’s discretion.

In a statement Monday, ICE said that a criminal record isn’t enough to qualify for mandatory detention under agency policies.

“When making custody determinations, ICE performs an individualized review of the individual’s immigration history and criminal history, pursuant to the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA),” the agency said. “In accordance with the requirements of the INA, not all criminals are subject to mandatory detention and thus may be eligible for bond.”

Detention cannot be used as a further punishment for their crimes or for being in the country illegally, but rather must be used as a tool for further deportation.

Still, ICE stiffened its policies this year, insisting that a supervisor approve cases when the agency plans to release immigrants with serious criminal records.

Even those released are usually monitored in some fashion, though The Washington Times reported last week that most of those under electronic monitoring violated some conditions of their release. Few violations were deemed serious enough to have their release revoked.

Critics who have been pushing for stiffer immigration enforcement said the violence rate for released immigrants is probably much higher and the 121 charged are only those who have been caught.

“Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime,” said Maria Espinoza, co-founder of the Remembrance Project, which advocates for victims of crimes committed by immigrants. “This further supports what we have been fighting for. The safety and welfare of Americans must be the priority of the administration and the Republican-led Congress.”

Don Rosenberg, whose son was killed in a traffic accident by an illegal immigrant driving without a license, said the government lacks the willpower to deport people and to do it quickly.

“These people can and should be deported. We have that option, and we don’t want to take it, and this is what happens,” he said. “I guess until somebody who has the responsibility to make these decisions has one of their loved ones killed, it’s going to continue to happen.”

In the case of Mr. Altamirano, he was put in deportation proceedings on Jan. 3, 2013, and released after posting bond four days later. His first hearing before the immigration court wasn’t until April 9, 2014, and he was still awaiting a final deportation order in January this year when he was arrested on charges of shooting a convenience store clerk in Mesa, Arizona.

Mr. Grassley and Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican and chairman of the immigration subcommittee, are seeking answers from Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Secretary of State John F. Kerry.

The senators want to know why Mr. Kerry hasn’t put more pressure on other countries to take back their citizens whom the U.S. wants to deport. Under the 2001 Supreme Court ruling known as the Zadvydas case, the U.S. generally cannot detain foreigners longer than six months if their countries won’t accept them. Every year, thousands of immigrants are put back on the streets because of Zadvydas.

Republicans have long pressured the State Department — under President George W. Bush and now under President Obama — to use diplomatic tools such as denying visas to top officials try to force other countries to take back their citizens.

The Times reported that ICE releases hundreds of Cuban criminals into U.S. communities every year because the island nation refuses to take them back.

 

 

Bio-weapons, History: Russia, Syria and Beyond

As it has been proven by countless authorities, chemical weapons used in Syria still continues today with future conditions ripe for more death events by chemical weapons.

Bashir al Assad is a desperate man today and nothing is beyond desperate decisions including more chemical weapons or attempting to kill his Vice President.

In part from the WSJ:

Assad Chemical Threat Rises
U.S. intelligence agencies believe there is a strong possibility the Assad regime will use chemical weapons on a large scale as part of a last-ditch effort to protect key Syrian government strongholds if Islamist fighters and other rebels try to overrun them, U.S. officials said.

Analysts and policy makers have been poring over all available intelligence hoping to determine what types of chemical weapons the regime might be able to deploy and what event or events might trigger their use, according to officials briefed on the matter.

Last year, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad let international inspectors oversee the removal of what President Barack Obama called the regime’s most deadly chemical weapons. The deal averted U.S. airstrikes that would have come in retaliation for an Aug. 21, 2013, sarin-gas attack that killed more than 1,400 people.

 

Since then, the U.S. officials said, the Assad regime has developed and deployed a new type of chemical bomb filled with chlorine, which Mr. Assad could now decide to use on a larger scale in key areas. U.S. officials also suspect the regime may have squirreled away at least a small reserve of the chemical precursors needed to make nerve agents sarin or VX. Use of those chemicals would raise greater international concerns because they are more deadly than chlorine and were supposed to have been eliminated. Read more here.

*** Obama defers the chemical weapons operation in Syria to Russia. Obama announced his red-line of use of chemical weapons in Syria as a shallow and empty threat. This decision is best described as giving a known terrorist ICBM’s. How so?

In part from Congressional documents: When Yeltsin took office in January 1992, the US forced his public admission that there had been an offensive Soviet BW program and that it had continued until March 1992. Yeltsin promised the US president and the British prime minister to abolish the program, which he apparently presumed to think would be possible by decree, and to dismiss the military officials who had run the program for the preceding decades. However, he did not do any of these things. These same military officials who advised Yeltsin in January 1992 to continue the BW program remained in their positions. Following additional defections from the program, the US and UK stated that the BW program continued as of September 1992, and they forced Russian agreement to the Trilateral Statement, signed in Moscow in September 1992. Russia committed itself in the document to allow access to the biological weapon facilities of the Russian Ministry of Defense. However Russian negotiating teams ran these negotiations into the ground between 1993 and 1996, at which point they were discontinued. An unconcerned and essentially oblivious Yeltsin had long before this point simply washed his hands of the issue despite repeated appeals by President Clinton and his senior officials.

US and EU assistance programs for the conversion of the Biopreparat and Ministry of Agriculture facilities led to access to these and assurance that they were subsequently performing legitimate civilian research and commercial activities. Virtually no proliferation apparently took place from the Soviet BW program. Official annual US government declarations continue to question Russian compliance with the BWC, and the three major Ministry of Defense facilities remain closed to this day.

In a somewhat bizarre development in February and March 2012 Putin and then-Russian Minister of Defense Anatoly Serdyukov publicly referred to 28 tasks that Putin established for the RF-MOD in order “to prepare for threats of the future.” Putin wrote that Russia needed to be prepared for “quick and effective responses to new challenges,” and one of the 28 tasks that Putin specified as “The development of weapons based on new physical principles: radiation, geophysical, wave, genetic, psychophysical, etc.”2 “Genetic” weapons would obviously be forbidden by the Biological Weapons Convention, and the remainder are an arms control nightmare that would explicitly contravene another multilateral arms control treaty that was championed by the Brezhnev administration, the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Technologies, signed on May 18, 1977 and entered into force on October 5, 1978.

The three primary issues of current concern regarding Russia and biological weapons are therefore the following:

1) Russia destroyed the Trilateral negotiations that followed from the September 1992 US-UKRussian Trilateral Agreement.

2) As a corollary, the three Russian Ministry of Defense BW laboratories remain closed to international examination. There is no way of knowing whether these institutions continue an offensive BW program, and if so, to what degree.

3) The statement by President Vladimir Putin in February-March 2012 to develop genetic weapons is extremely problematic and troubling. Putin’s remarks were never revoked or clarified to this date.

 Where is Obama and Samantha Power at the UN on this matter?

What real explanation can Barack Obama offer that he turned to Putin to deal with the matter in Syria? How much more genocide will there be and will it be confined just to Syria?

In part: “Ken Alibek was Dr. Kanatjan Alibekov, the first deputy chief of research and production for the Soviet biological-weapons program. He was the top scientist in the program, a sprawling, clandestine enterprise known as Biopreparat, or The System, by the scientists who worked in it. Biopreparat research-and-production facilities were flung all across the Soviet Union. As Dr. Alibekov, Ken Alibek had thirtytwo thousand scientists and staff people working under him. Alibek has a Doctor of Sciences degree in anthrax. It is a kind of superdegree, which he received in 1988, at the age of thirty-seven, for directing the research team that developed the Soviet Union’s most powerful weapons-grade anthrax. He did this research as head of the Stepnagorsk bioweapons facility, in what is now Kazakhstan, which was once the largest biowarfare production facility in the world. The Afibekov anthrax became fitfly operational in 1989. It is an amber-gray powder, finer than bath talc, with smooth, creamy particles that tend to fly apart and vanish in the air, becoming invisible and driffing for miles. The Alibekov anthrax is four times more efficient than the standard product. Ken Alibek is part of a diaspora of biologists who came out of Russia foflowing the breakup of the Soviet Union. Government funding for research decreased dramatically, and scientists who were working in the biowarfare program found themselves without jobs. Some of them went looking abroad. A few have come to the United States or Great Britain, but most went elsewhere. “No one knows where they are,” Alibek says. One can guess-that they’ve ended up in Iraq, Syria, Libya, China, Iran, perhaps Israel, perhaps India–but no one really knows, probably not even the Russian’ government. No doubt some of these biologists have carried the Alibekov formi4a in their heads, if not master seed strains of the anthrax and samples of the finished product in containers. The Alibekov anthrax may be one of the more common bioweapons in the world today. It seems plausible that Iraqi biologists, for instance, know the Alibekov formula by now. One day, Ken Alibek and I were sitting in a conference room near his office taMng about the anthrax he and his research team had developed. “It’s very difficult to say if I felt a sense of excitement over this. It’s very difficult to say what I felt like,” he said. “It woulddt be true to say that I thought I was doing something wrong..l thought I had done something very important. The anthrax was one of my [outstanding] scientific personal result.” I asked him if he’d tell me the formula for his anthrax. “I cadt say this,” he answered. “I won’t publish it. I’m just curious,” I said. “Look, you must understand, this is unbelievably serious. You can’t publish this formula,” he said. When I assured him I wouldn’t, he told me the formula for the Alibekov anthrax. He uttered just one sentence. The Alibekov anthrax is simple, and the formula is somewhat surprisingi not quite what you’d expect. Two unrelated materials are mixed with pure powdered anthrax spores. It took a lot of research and testing to get the trick right, and Afibek must have driven his research group hard and skdmy to arrive at it. “There are many countries that would to know how to do this,” he said.”