Speaker John Boehner on Thursday said it is time for President Obama to take a “more active role” in dealing with “the ongoing threat of al-Qaida in Iraq,” although he said he does not yet mean sending in American troops.
“There are things that we can do to help the Iraqis that do not involve putting U.S. troops on the ground,” the Ohio Republican said, including getting equipment to the Iraqis and providing “other services that will help them battle this counterterrorism effort that they are attempting to do.”
Boehner does not typically speak out on military issues. However, he had been among those instrumental in drumming up support for the troop “surge” in 2007, and in battling efforts to cut funding and prevent those deployments.
Shortly after beginning a news conference, Boehner, unprompted, told reporters, “Precious American blood was spilled and national treasure was expended helping the Iraqis remove a brutal dictator and repelling terrorist elements determined to stamp out human freedom and dignity.”
“That progress is now threatened, and in the case of Fallujah, has been reversed,” said Boehner, referring to reports of Iraqi military being defeated by Qaida militants.
Boehner went on to complain that Obama has delegated “his responsibilities to the vice president,” and that “the administration has chosen to spend much of its time and energy trying to explain why having terrorists hold key terrain in the Middle East is not the president’s problem.”
He said a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq should have been agreed to.
Pressed specifically about whether he is calling for troops to be sent, Boehner said there are other things that can be done instead.
“One, I think the president ought to take a more active role in dealing with the issues in Iraq.” He added, “Secondly, we need to get equipment to the Iraqis and other services that will help them battle this counterterrorism effort that they are attempting to do.”
“The United States has, and will continue to have, vital national interests in Iraq,” Boehner said. “We must maintain a long-term commitment to a successful outcome there. It’s time the president recognize this and get engaged.”
What We're Following See More »
The indictment, filed in the District of Columbia, alleges that the interference began "in or around 2014," when the defendants began tracking and studying U.S. social media sites. They "created and controlled numerous Twitter accounts" and "purchased computer servers located inside the United States" to mask their identities, some of which were stolen. The interference was coordinated by election interference "specialists," and focused on the Black Lives Matter movement, immigration, and other divisive issues. "By early to mid-2016" the groups began supporting the campaign of "then-candidate Donald Trump," including by communicating with "unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign..."
"Former Trump campaign adviser Rick Gates is finalizing a plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller's office, indicating he's poised to cooperate in the investigation, according to sources familiar with the case. Gates has already spoken to Mueller's team about his case and has been in plea negotiations for about a month. He's had what criminal lawyers call a 'Queen for a Day' interview, in which a defendant answers any questions from the prosecutors' team, including about his own case and other potential criminal activity he witnessed."
"The Senate on Thursday rejected immigration legislation crafted by centrists in both parties after President Trump threatened to veto the bill if it made it to his desk. In a 54-45 vote, the Senate failed to advance the legislation from eight Republican, seven Democratic and one Independent senators. It needed 60 votes to overcome a procedural hurdle. "
"The House Intelligence Committee has scheduled a Thursday meeting to hear testimony from Steve Bannon—but it's an open question whether President Donald Trump's former chief strategist will even show up. The White House sent a letter to Capitol Hill late Wednesday laying out its explanation for why Trump's transition period falls under its authority to assert executive privilege, a move intended to shield Bannon from answering questions about that time period." Both Republicans and Democrats on the committee dispute the White House's theory, and have floated charging Bannon with contempt should he refuse to appear.