Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA has not decided how to respond to rampant Sunni militants grabbing swathes of Iraq, but is looking at every option short of sending US combat soldiers back to war.
Officials said last night that Obama had not ruled out any possible courses of action, including air strikes against ISIS fighters.
Signs also emerged of rising US pressure on Shiite Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who is being blamed in Washington for causing Iraq to splinter after discriminating against the minority Sunni community.
But there were no signs that renewed US military action was imminent in a war Obama had declared at an end in 2011, hoping to cement his political legacy.
“The only thing the president has ruled out is sending troops back into combat in Iraq, but he continues to consider other options,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said.
“Work is being done that will help us see with more clarity what the options available to the president are,” Carney added, when asked to clarify whether Obama had ruled out air strikes.
Secretary of State John Kerry reinforced the message in an interview with NBC television.
“Nothing is off the table. All options are still available to the president,” Kerry said, adding Obama was “very intensely vetting” his plan.
Obama’s other options include a possible drone campaign against ISIL forces, which have seized Iraqi cities including Tikrit and Mosul, or stepped up assistance and training to Iraqi government forces.
Squandered gains
One official said that, while there was rampant speculation in Washington about US responses to the seizures of vast swathes of territory in Iraq by ISIL, Obama ”has not made a decision.”
Vice President Joe Biden, traveling in South America, drove home the US message that Maliki needs to lead all Iraqis, not just Shiites.
He told the Iraqi leader in a telephone call that he must govern in an “inclusive manner, promote stability and unity among Iraq’s population, and address the legitimate needs of Iraq’s diverse communities,” a White House statement said.
Earlier, the top US military officer, General Martin Dempsey, blamed the Iraqi government for the deepening sectarian mire.
“There is very little that could have been done to overcome the degree to which the government of Iraq had failed its people,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said.
“That’s what has caused this problem,” Dempsey told lawmakers when asked if the United States could have taken action to counter the advance of Sunni militants.
A Wall Street Journal report said that Washington wanted Maliki out, believing that he would never preside over an inclusive Iraqi state.
US officials publicly say it is up to Iraqis to chose their leaders, but pledge to continually point out that governing in a non-sectarian way is a crucial qualification for office.
Earlier, Iraq had officially requested US air support against the rebels who have occupied some key cities during an eight-day offensive.
Obama met Democratic Congressional chiefs Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Republican party bosses, House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
The meeting took place against revived and fierce political debate, with Republicans saying Obama had squandered the gains of a bloody war that was essentially won when he pulled out all US troops nearly three years ago.
Democrats charge that former president George W. Bush blew the lid off Iraq’s bottled up sectarian stew by invading the country in 2003 and that Maliki threw away a chance for a stable future for Iraq wrought by US blood and treasure.
Before Boehner joined the talks, he asked for a “broader strategy for how we help keep the freedom that we paid dearly for the people of Iraq.”
Partisan clash
After the leaders emerged, McConnell underscored the partisan clash over Iraq.
“Unfortunately, Iraqi security forces are now less capable than when the president withdrew the entirety of our force without successfully negotiating a remaining US presence capable of preserving our gains and mentoring our partners,” McConnell said.
Pelosi said she was pleased Obama would not send troops back to Iraq and argued Obama would not need new authorization from Congress if he took military action in Iraq.
McConnell also later told reporters Obama believed he did not need new authorization from lawmakers to act.
The row over what to do about the current crisis in Iraq also drew in a venerable combatant: former vice president Dick Cheney, who penned a savage critique of Obama’s foreign policy on the Journal’s opinion page.
“Rarely has a US president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many,” Cheney said in a column co-authored by daughter Liz Cheney, a former State Department official.
Angela Kerins, the reason I no longer donate money to charity.
@David Oppenshore: Well said sir. Money only going to pay CEO salary and outrageous expenses.
No charity, sporting or other such organisation should be given public money unless they first waive any ‘rights’ to protect themselves from public scrutiny of their finances. They can carry on freely without that money if they chose. Take it or leave it.
@Sega Yolo: totally agree
@Sega Yolo: perfectly said.
Imagine that. Kerins took home a ludicrous salary whilst miserably mismanaging the running of a charity and somehow is managing to outdo herself and create a lasting damage on the public’s ability to hold future disasters to account…
Just when you think you know the limits of someone’s toxicity to society, she goes and out does herself once more without even being in the room.
The Irish charity industry is destroyed by the greed of the few!
Vote with your feet,
Don’t give a penny to them!
@Niall Power: will never give a penny to any charity that pays their CEO and subordinates excessive salaries.
The pac committee full of incompetent politicians is not fit for purpose. The questioning of the fai officials the other day was very weak, pure amateurish, they really didn’t know their brief, what questions to ask.
@Adrian: they could have asked what day it was and still not received a straight answer.
@Dave O’Keeffe: they’re not legal experts, they were afraid to ask the questions the other day because of the potential legal repercussions, hence the farce that it was. They need legal experts on those committees, they should be able to come to some arrangement without turning them into tribunals. A bunch of incompetent politicians protecting their own interests, paying themselves 15k fees while asking stupid questions like “how many bank accounts do you have?”, turns the whole process into a joke and achieves nothing.
@Adrian: the questions were 100%. The problem was the FAI officials refused to answer. Nothing the pac can do about that.
@Adrian: They were told what they could ask “legally”. The law seems to protect the wealthy wrongdoers.
People in high positions have to be held accountable in public. However I struggle with the idea of giving the likes of Ruth Coppinger and others the power to carry out public investigations and give them compellabilty. If that became the case I could see people’s good name and reputation coming second to political point scoring.
Totally irrelevant nothing to do with FAI. The FAI is not a charity – it is a business and why they kept quoting the Kerins case is s mystery to me.
Looking at some of the motley members of various committees one would have to be dubious. Some are up to the task but many others fail miserably. Some are rude, arrogant, ill-informed and totally oblivious to their briefs. If they are that determined to cross the line then they should be open to full retribution in the courts. The verdict in the Angela Kearns case was spot on!!
@Chris Gaffney: I don’t know about that, why should good TDs and Senators who ask the difficult questions be muzzled by a ruling like that? I do get that there are some clowns on these committees, and they say things for headlines and there 30 seconds on sixone so the voters back home can see them sticking up to the dubs, but the real nature of these committees should be open, honest and sometimes difficult conversations with people like Delaney.
Lawmakers unhappy that the have to work within the law, my heart goes out to them.
Even if there was no Kerins ruling the public voted to reduce the powers of the committee so they are limited from the offset .
Kerins is looking for and going to get a multi million damages award for her suffering at PAC ..this is the biggest joke of all.
Delaney puffed and bluffed and ran circles round the PAC the Kearins judgment rules thst the PAC cannor go outside its remit or in other words tits terms of reference. Once the PAC keep within its remit lile asking questions on the €1000 loan then it would not fall foul on the Supreme Courts judgement.
Who can afford to bring a case to the High Court or Supreme Court ?
The Courts and Judges are only there to interpret the Law and ensure it is upheld. They do no make law.
If the PAC feel that the ‘Laws’ of our land are not sufficient, then it is up to them as legislators to change the ‘Laws’, so that their tongues are not tied when questioning individuals and agencies about their conduct. They have no one to blame but themselves for the situation the PAC finds themselves in.
1/ The Kerins issue is not case law yet, is awaiting determination on appeal, & is not relevant. Mr. D used the pending determination to ward off awkward questions, left them hanging out there, & thereby damaged his public standing.
2/ The committee did not need to subject anyone, including Mr. Delaney, to interrogation on their income or expenses, & just stay on track about the application of public funds & FAI corporate management. The investigative journalists have put these questions out, the public are expecting the FAI to provide the answers.
3/ Sport Ireland can with hold funding, insist on a forensic audit of the FAI accounts for the years when public funding was drawn down, & require appropriate governance structures, in accordance with the separate reviews already commissioned.
have your say