McConnell: Obama Tells Congressional Leaders He Won’t Seek Authority for Next Steps on Iraq

There was no outrage from top Republicans following a critical meeting on the unfolding crisis.

President Obama meets with Congressional leadership in the Oval Office of the White House on June 18, 2014 in Washington, DC. 
National Journal
Elahe Izadi
June 18, 2014, 1:16 p.m.

Pres­id­ent Obama told top mem­bers of Con­gress on Wed­nes­day that he won’t need to ask for con­gres­sion­al per­mis­sion for the next steps he will take on the crisis in Ir­aq, ac­cord­ing to the Sen­ate’s top Re­pub­lic­an.

“The pres­id­ent just ba­sic­ally briefed us on the situ­ation in Ir­aq, in­dic­ated he didn’t feel he had any need for au­thor­ity from us for steps he might take, and in­dic­ated he would keep us pos­ted,” Sen­ate Minor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell told re­port­ers after a White House meet­ing about Ir­aq.

While top Re­pub­lic­ans had been highly crit­ic­al of Obama earli­er in the week for not provid­ing a plan on Ir­aq, the ten­or of their cri­ti­cism has died down. Mc­Con­nell char­ac­ter­ized the meet­ing by say­ing they “had a good dis­cus­sion.”

Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id had said Tues­day that the ad­min­is­tra­tion doesn’t “need any more au­thor­ity than they already have to do whatever they need to do there.”

In a state­ment later, Re­id said, “the Pres­id­ent said he is not cur­rently con­sid­er­ing ac­tions that would re­quire Con­gres­sion­al ap­prov­al but was very clear that he would con­sult with Con­gress if that changed.”

A seni­or Demo­crat­ic aide briefed on the meet­ing said Mc­Con­nell’s com­ments about con­gres­sion­al ap­prov­al mis­char­ac­ter­ized the sub­stance of the meet­ing.

House Speak­er John Boehner didn’t is­sue a state­ment on the meet­ing, but a House Re­pub­lic­an lead­er­ship aide said there was no dis­agree­ment with how Mc­Con­nell de­scribed wheth­er Obama would seek con­gres­sion­al ap­prov­al.

Des­pite no signs from the White House that it will form­ally ask Con­gress for au­thor­ity to take any kind of mil­it­ary ac­tion, there are pledges to keep lead­ers in­formed. The White House said the pres­id­ent “asked each of the lead­ers for their view of the cur­rent situ­ation and pledged to con­tin­ue con­sult­ing closely with Con­gress go­ing for­ward.”

“It was a good meet­ing. Every­body seems sat­is­fied. The pres­id­ent is go­ing to keep us as in­formed as he can as this pro­cess moves for­ward,” Re­id said back at the Cap­it­ol on Wed­nes­day.

While top Demo­crat­ic lead­ers have as­ser­ted that Obama re­tains such an au­thor­ity, some Demo­crats ques­tion it and want Con­gress to be able to weigh in. The ad­min­is­tra­tion could use the 2001 Au­thor­ized Use of Mil­it­ary Force res­ol­u­tion, for in­stance, but the leg­al­ity of such a move is still un­clear.

The lead­ers wouldn’t di­vulge what op­tions the ad­min­is­tra­tion is weigh­ing to re­spond to the vi­ol­ence in the re­gion. Obama has already ruled out send­ing on-the-ground com­bat troops, which is something that con­gres­sion­al Demo­crats have stood against. The U.S. will be send­ing up to 275 armed forces to provide em­bassy se­cur­ity.

Earli­er in the day, the As­so­ci­ated Press re­por­ted that Obama is mov­ing away from mil­it­ary air­strikes as a re­sponse.

Obama up­dated con­gres­sion­al lead­ers on the U.S. re­sponse to di­min­ish the crisis by “ur­ging Ir­aq’s lead­ers to set aside sec­tari­an agen­das and to come to­geth­er with a sense of na­tion­al unity,” ac­cord­ing to the White House readout of the meet­ing, and also briefed the law­makers on Amer­ic­an ef­forts to strengthen Ir­aqi se­cur­ity forces in their fight against the mil­it­ants.

This story has been up­dated to re­flect new com­ments about the meet­ing.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
6 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
7 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×