Kerry Says ISIS Threat Could Hasten Military Action

UPDATE:




IT SOUNDS TO ME, IT IS NOT “ IF” BUT “WHEN?" 

What a wonderful Idea it was for the US and UK to remove Saddam - The map shows the consequences

GUARDIAN

• Jihadist fighters in Iraq seized three border crossings into Syria and Jordan and four nearby towns over the weekend, giving the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isis) control over much of the country's western frontier and directly threatening the country's main power supply.
• Isis can now add large swaths of the Iraqi border to a 300km stretch of land it already controls along the Euphrates river, from Mosul in the north to Saddam Hussein's home town, Tikrit, which now gives the group a launching pad for potential attacks on strategic sites, including the lifeblood of Iraq's electricity generation, the Haditha dam. The gains also bring the crisis in Iraq to the doorstep of Jordan, a key ally of the United States.
• The latest Isis offensive comes as Iraq’s polarised political blocs face a week of intense lobbying to form an inclusive government that could unite the fracturing country.
• The US secretary of state, John Kerry, is  in Baghdad.
• The latest Isis offensive in western Anbar province has seen the group take four towns in recent days. 
• Iraqi officials said the militants took over the Turaibil crossing with Jordan and the Walid crossing with Syria after government forces there pulled out. 
• Al-Qaim, a restive town on the Syrian border, fell a day earlier.
• The capture of the crossings follows the fall on Friday and Saturday of the towns of Rawah, Anah and Rutba. They are all in the Sunni-dominated Anbar province, where the militants have since January controlled the city of Falluja and parts of the provincial capital, Ramadi.

"It is downright harmful, because it creates a false sense of security ... Complete bullshit. We'll get in conflict with the Germans, Russians and we'll think that everything is super, because we gave the Americans a blow job. Losers. Complete losers."

Polish foreign minister says country's alliance with US worthless

According to a transcript of recordings obtained by Wprost, Radislaw Sikorski said 'we gave the US a blow job'

Reuters in Warsaw theguardian.com, 

Sunday 22 June 2014 12.00 EDT

A Polish news magazine said on Sunday it had obtained a secret recording of Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, in contention for a senior European Union job, saying that Poland's relationship with the United States was worthless.

The Wprost news magazine said the recording was of a private conversation earlier this year between Sikorski and Jacek Rostowski, a member of parliament with the ruling Civic Platform who until last year was finance minister.

The magazine did not say who recorded the conversation, or how it obtained the recording.

Aides to Sikorski and Rostowski said they had no immediate comment. A government spokeswoman said it was hard to form a view based on a few excerpts of a conversation, but there might be a comment later.

According to a transcript of excerpts of the conversation that was published by Wprost on its Internet site, Sikorski told Rostowski: "You know that the Polish-US alliance isn't worth anything."

"It is downright harmful, because it creates a false sense of security ... Complete bullshit. We'll get in conflict with the Germans, Russians and we'll think that everything is super, because we gave the Americans a blow job. Losers. Complete losers."

According to the transcript, Sikorski described Warsaw's attitude towards the United States using the Polish word "murzynskosc."

That derives from the word "murzyn," which denotes a dark-skinned person and someone who does the work for somebody else, according to the PWN Polish language dictionary.

The remarks were brief excerpts from a longer conversation between the two men, and it was not immediately clear if Sikorski had made comments elsewhere in the conversation that contradicted those excerpts.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk said last month that Sikorski would be a natural candidate for the job of the EU's top diplomat. The role is filled by Catherine Ashton, but may become vacant when a new European Commission is formed.

Asked by Reuters to comment on the transcript of Sikorski's conversation with Rostowski, foreign ministry spokesman Marcin Wojciechowski said: "We do not comment on media speculation ... Possible comments will be published only after the whole magazine is published."

Government spokeswoman Malgorzata Kidawa-Blonska said the government was waiting for publication of the full recordings before commenting.

"It's hard to relate to something which is just a few sentences taken out of a conversation. We'll comment probably on Monday or Tuesday after the government's sitting," she said.

An aide in Rostowski's parliamentary office said he would not comment "at least until he familiarizes himself with the whole conversation."

Wprost last week published secret recordings of conversations between two other senior officials, central bank chief Marek Belka and Interior Minister Bartlomiej Sienkiewicz.

According to a transcript, the two men discussed the central bank helping the government with the economy if it is facing election defeat, and ways of applying pressure on a businessman. Both man have said their words were taking out of context and that they did not break the law.

The recordings prompted calls from the opposition for the government to step down. A raid by prosecutors on the premises of Wprost magazine to try to seize as yet-unpublished tapes prompted protests over media freedoms.

Tusk said last week that calling an early election was an option if no other way could be found out of the crisis.

Sikorski must have been studying his American History:

Who is ISIS?

Secret video of ISIS smuggled out of Iraq:

ISIS recruiting video:



Iranians prepare for the ISIS invasion:

Let’s summarize:

Does the US Government “support” or “not support” terrorism depending on the situation?
Yes.

Have foreign Intel agencies supplied terrorist organizations in Syria with weapons and logistical support?
Yes.

Has the CIA?
Yes.

Has the Obama administration signaled that they would like to get rid of al Maliki or greatly reduce his power?
Yes.

Is this because they think the present arrangement strengthens Iran’s regional influence?
Yes.

Will Isis invade Baghdad?
No. (This is just a guess, but I expect that something has been already worked out between the Obama team and the Baathist leaders. If Baghdad was really in danger, Obama would probably be acting with greater earnestness.)

Will Syria and Iraq be partitioned?
Yes.

Is Isis a CIA creation?
No. According to Ziad Fadel, “ISIS is the creation of the one man who played Alqaeda like a yo-yo. Bandar bin Sultan.”

Does Isis take orders from Washington or the CIA?
Probably not, although their actions appear to coincide with US strategic objectives. (which is the point!)

Is Obama’s reluctance to launch an attack on Isis indicate that he wants to diminish Iran’s power in Iraq, redraw the map of the Middle East, and create politically powerless regions run by warlords and tribal leaders?
Yes, yes and yes.

=============

The ISIS Fiasco: It’s Really an Attack on Iran

For Once, Not a CIA Plot?

By Mike Whitney

Global Research, June 20, 2014

CounterPunch 18 June 2014

Region: Middle East & North Africa, USA

Theme: 9/11 & 'War on Terrorism', US NATO War Agenda

In-depth Report: IRAQ REPORT

There’s something that doesn’t ring-true about the coverage of crisis in Iraq. Maybe it’s the way the media reiterates the same, tedious storyline over and over again with only the slightest changes in the narrative. For example, I was reading an article in the Financial Times by Council on Foreign Relations president, Richard Haass, where he says that Maliki’s military forces in Mosul “melted away”. Interestingly, the Haass op-ed was followed by a piece by David Gardener who used almost the very same language. He said the “army melts away.” So, I decided to thumb through the news a bit and see how many other journalists were stung by the “melted away” bug. And, as it happens, there were quite a few, including Politico, NBC News, News Sentinel, Global Post, the National Interest, ABC News etc. Now, the only way an unusual expression like that would pop up with such frequency would be if the authors were getting their talking points from a central authority. (which they probably do.) But the effect, of course, is the exact opposite than what the authors intend, that is, these cookie cutter stories leave readers scratching their heads and feeling like something fishy is going on.

And something fishy IS going on. The whole fable about 1,500 jihadis scaring the pants off 30,000 Iraqi security guards to the point where they threw away their rifles, changed their clothes and headed for the hills, is just not believable. I don’t know what happened in Mosul, but, I’ll tell you one thing, it wasn’t that. That story just doesn’t pass the smell test.

And what happened in Mosul matters too, because nearly every journalist and pundit in the MSM is using the story to discredit Maliki and suggest that maybe Iraq would be better off without him. Haass says that it shows that the army’s “allegiance to the government is paper thin”. Gardener says its a sign of “a fast failing state.” Other op-ed writers like Nicolas Kristof attack Maliki for other reasons, like being too sectarian. Here’s Kristof:

“The debacle in Iraq isn’t President Obama’s fault. It’s not the Republicans’ fault. Both bear some responsibility, but, overwhelmingly, it’s the fault of the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri Kamal al-Maliki.”

Of course, Kristof is no match for the imperial mouthpiece, Tom Friedman. When it comes to pure boneheaded bluster, Friedman is still numero uno. Here’s how the jowly pundit summed it up in an article in the Sunday Times titled “Five Principles for Iraq”:

“Iraq’s Shiite prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, has proved himself not to be a friend of a democratic, pluralistic Iraq either. From Day 1, he has used his office to install Shiites in key security posts, drive out Sunni politicians and generals and direct money to Shiite communities. In a word, Maliki has been a total jerk. Besides being prime minister, he made himself acting minister of defense, minister of the interior and national security adviser, and his cronies also control the Central Bank and the Finance Ministry.

Maliki had a choice — to rule in a sectarian way or in an inclusive way — and he chose sectarianism. We owe him nothing.” (Five Principles for Iraq, Tom Freidman, New York Times)

Leave it to Friedman, eh? In other words, the reason Iraq is such a mess, has nothing to do with the invasion, the occupation, the death squads, Abu Ghraib, the Salvador Option, the decimated infrastructure, the polluted environment, or the vicious sectarian war the US ignited with its demented counterinsurgency program. Oh, no. The reason Iraq is a basketcase is because Maliki is a jerk. Maliki is sectarian. Bad Maliki.

Sound familiar? Putin last week. Maliki this week. Who’s next?

In any event, there is a rational explanation for what happened in Mosul although I cannot verify its authenticity. Check out this post at Syria Perspectives blog:

“…the Iraqi Ba’ath Party’s primary theoretician and Saddam’s right-hand man, ‘Izzaat Ibraaheem Al-Douri, himself a native of Mosul…was searching out allies in a very hostile post-Saddam Iraq … Still on the run and wanted for execution by the Al-Maliki government, Al-Douri still controlled a vast network of Iraqi Sunni Ba’athists who operated in a manner similar to the old Odessa organization that helped escaped Nazis after WWII … he did not have the support structure needed to oust Al-Maliki, so, he found an odd alliance in ISIS through the offices of Erdoghan and Bandar. Our readers should note that the taking of Mosul was accomplished by former Iraqi Ba’athist officers suspiciously abandoning their posts and leaving a 52,000 man military force without any leadership thereby forcing a complete collapse of the city’s defenses. The planning and collaboration cannot be coincidental.” (THE INNER CORE OF ISIS – THE INVASIVE SPECIES, Ziad Fadel, Syrian Perspectives)

I’ve read variations of this same explanation on other blogs, but I have no way of knowing whether they’re true or not. But what I do know, is that it’s a heckuva a lot more believable than the other explanation mainly because it provides enough background and detail to make the scenario seem plausible. The official version–the “melts away” version– doesn’t do that at all. It just lays out this big bogus story expecting people to believe it on faith alone. Why? Because it appeared in all the papers?

That seems like a particularly bad reason for believing anything.

And the “army melting away” story is just one of many inconsistencies in the official media version of events. Another puzzler is why Obama allowed the jihadis to rampage across Iraq without lifting a finger to help. Does that strike anyone else as a bit odd?

When was the last time an acting president failed to respond immediately and forcefully to a similar act of aggression?

Never. The US always responds. And the pattern is always the same. “Stop what you are doing now or we’re going to bomb you to smithereens.” Isn’t that the typical response?

Sure it is. But Obama delivered no such threat this time. Instead, he’s qualified his support for al-Maliki saying that the beleaguered president must “begin accommodating Sunni participation in his government” before the US will lend a hand. What kind of lame response is that? Check out this blurb from MNI News:

“President Barack Obama Friday warned Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that the United States wants him to begin accommodating Sunni participation in his government, or see the United States withhold the help he needs, short of U.S. troops on the ground, to ward off an attack on Baghdad.

Obama added the emphasis of an appearance before TV cameras to his midday message, that while he will be considering options for some military intervention in the days ahead, the next move is up to Maliki.”
(Obama Warns Iraq’s Maliki,Looking for Sunni-Shia Accommodation, MNI)

Have you ever read such nonsense in your life? Imagine if , let’s say, the jihadi hordes had gathered just 50 miles outside of London and were threatening to invade at any minute. Do you think Obama would deliver the same message to UK Prime Minister David Cameron?

“Gee, Dave, we’d really like to help out, but you need to put a couple of these guys in your government first. Would that be okay, Dave? Just think of it as affirmative action for terrorists.”

It might sound crazy, but that’s what Obama wants Maliki to do. So, what’s going on here? Why is Obama delivering ultimatums when he should be helping out? Could it be that Obama has a different agenda than Maliki’s and that the present situation actually works to his benefit?

It sure looks that way. Just take a look at what Friedman says further on in the same article. It helps to clarify the point. He says:

“Maybe Iran, and its wily Revolutionary Guards Quds Force commander, Gen. Qassem Suleimani, aren’t so smart after all. It was Iran that armed its Iraqi Shiite allies with the specially shaped bombs that killed and wounded many American soldiers. Iran wanted us out. It was Iran that pressured Maliki into not signing an agreement with the U.S. to give our troops legal cover to stay in Iraq. Iran wanted to be the regional hegemon. Well, Suleimani: “This Bud’s for you.” Now your forces are overextended in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, and ours are back home. Have a nice day.” (5 Principles for Iraq, Tom Friedman, New York Times)

Interesting, eh? Friedman basically admits that this whole fiasco is about Iran who turned out to be the biggest winner in the Iraq War sweepstakes. Naturally, that pisses off people in Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh to no end, so they’ve cooked up this goofy plan to either remove Maliki altogether or significantly trim his wings. Isn’t that what’s going on? And that’s why Obama is holding a gun to Maliki’s head and telling him what hoops he has to jump through in order to get US help. Because he’s determined to weaken Iran’s hegemonic grip on Baghdad.

Friedman also notes the Status of Forces agreement which would have allowed U.S. troops to stay in Iraq. Al Maliki rejected the deal which enraged Washington setting the stage for this latest terrorist farce. Obama intends to reverse that decision by hook or crook. This is just the way Washington does business, by twisting arms and breaking legs. Everybody knows this.

To understand what’s going on today in Iraq, we need to know a little history. In 2002, The Bush administration commissioned the Rand Corporation “to develop a Shaping Strategy for pacifying Muslim populations where the US has commercial or strategic interests.” The plan they came up with–which was called “US Strategy in the Muslim World after 9-11”– recommended that the US, “Align its policy with Shiite groups who aspire to have more participation in government and greater freedoms of political and religious expression. If this alignment can be brought about, it could erect a barrier against radical Islamic movements and may create a foundation for a stable U.S. position in the Middle East.”

The Bushies decided to follow this wacky plan which proved to be a huge tactical error. By throwing their weight behind the Shia, they triggered a massive Sunni rebellion that initiated as many as 100 attacks per day on US soldiers. That, in turn, led to a savage US counterinsurgency that wound up killing tens of thousands of Sunnis while reducing much of the country to ruins. Petraeus’ vicious onslaught was concealed behind the misleading PR smokescreen of sectarian civil war. It was actually a genocidal war against the people who Obama now tacitly supports in Mosul and Tikrit.

So there’s been a huge change of policy, right? And the fact that the US has taken a hands-off approach to Isis suggests that the Obama administration has abandoned the Rand strategy altogether and is looking for ways to support Sunni-led groups in their effort to topple the Al Assad regime in Damascus, weaken Hezbollah, and curtail Iran’s power in the region. While the strategy is ruthless and despicable, at least it makes sense in the perverted logic of imperial expansion, which the Rand plan never did.

What is happening in Iraq today was anticipated in a 2007 Seymour Hersh article titled “The Redirection.” Author Tony Cartalucci gives a great summary of the piece in his own article. He says:

“The Redirection,” documents…US, Saudi, and Israeli intentions to create and deploy sectarian extremists region-wide to confront Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hersh would note that these “sectarian extremists” were either tied to Al Qaeda, or Al Qaeda itself. The ISIS army moving toward Baghdad is the final manifestation of this conspiracy, a standing army operating with impunity, threatening to topple the Syrian government, purge pro-Iranian forces in Iraq, and even threatening Iran itself by building a bridge from Al Qaeda’s NATO safe havens in Turkey, across northern Iraq, and up to Iran’s borders directly…

It is a defacto re-invasion of Iraq by Western interests – but this time without Western forces directly participating – rather a proxy force the West is desperately attempting to disavow any knowledge of or any connection to.” (America’s Covert Re-Invasion of Iraq, Tony Cartalucci, Information Clearinghouse)

So, now we’re getting to the crux of the matter, right? Now we should be able to identify the policy that is guiding events. What we know for sure is that the US wants to break Iran’s grip on Iraq. But how do they plan to achieve that; that’s the question?

Well, they could use their old friends the Baathists who they’ve been in touch with since 2007. That might work. But then they’d have to add a few jihadis to the mix to make it look believable.

Okay. But does that mean that Obama is actively supporting Isis?

No, not necessarily. Isis is already connected to other Intel agencies and might not need direct support from the US. (Note: Many analysts have stated that the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) receives generous donations from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, both of whom are staunch US allies. According to London’s Daily Express: “through allies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the West (has) supported militant rebel groups which have since mutated into ISIS and other al‑Qaeda connected militias. ( Daily Telegraph, June 12, 2014)

What’s important as far as Obama is concerned, is that the strategic objectives of Isis and those of the United States coincide. Both entities seek greater political representation for Sunnis, both want to minimize Iranian influence in Iraq, and both support a soft partition plan that former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Leslie H. Gelb, called “The only viable strategy to correct (Iraq ‘s) historical defect and move in stages toward a three-state solution: Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center and Shiites in the south.” This is why Obama hasn’t attacked the militia even though it has marched to within 50 miles of Baghdad. It’s because the US benefits from these developments.

The present US set up in Washington is rotten to the core - They will Never willingly stop - Three stories

FIRST - THE SMUGGEST PRICK EVER TO TESTIFY TO CONGRESS SINCE JIMMY HOFFA:

SECOND - THE US STAR CHAMBER:
  

Fisa court grants extension of licence for bulk collection of US phone records

Reauthorisation is fifth since the Guardian revealed existence of Section 215 telephony metadata program in June last year

Dan Roberts in Washington 

Follow @RobertsDan Follow @GuardianUS

theguardian.com, Friday 20 June 2014 20.18 EDT

The Fisa court has granted a 90-day extension of the licence that allows the NSA to collect metadata. Photograph: Patrick Semansky/AP

US intelligence agencies have made a fifth attempt to extend their bulk collection of American telephone records – more than a year after the controversial practice was first revealed by National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Despite repeated calls from Congress and President Obama for the mass gathering of private US phone records to be banned, a court has approved the request in secret, allowing the NSA to continue collecting metadata until 12 September 2014.

In a joint statement released late on Friday afternoon, the justice department and director of national intelligence, James Clapper, said it was necessary to continue seeking such legal extensions because the Congressional reform process supported by Obama was not yet complete.

"Given that legislation has not yet been enacted, and given the importance of maintaining the capabilities of the Section 215 telephony metadata program, the government has sought a 90-day reauthorization of the existing program," said the joint statement.

The 90-day blanket licence granted by the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or Fisa court, is the fifth such extension that has been requested, and granted, since the Guardian first revealed the existence of the Section 215 program on 5 June 2013.

Similar 90-day reauthorisations were subsequently declassified by the administration on 19 July 2013, 11 October 2013, 3 January 2014 and 11 April 2014.Yet in March, Obama reacted to growing criticism of the NSA's domestic surveillance acitivities by calling for an end to bulk collection under Section 215 and suggesting that records be retained instead by telephone companies, and only be available for specific searches following court requests.

In May, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the USA Freedom Act, which sought to enshrine this ban in law, although civil liberties campaigners claimed it was significantly watered down after pressure on legislators by government regulators.

In a statement explaining the latest renewal request on Friday, the justice department and office of the director of national intelligence said that they still support the legislation and would work with Congress to try to clarify the language before it is voted on by the Senate.

"Overall, the bill's significant reforms would provide the public greater confidence in our programs and the checks and balances in the system, while ensuring our intelligence and law enforcement professionals have the authorities they need to protect the Nation," the statement said.

"The administration strongly supports the USA Freedom Act. We urge the Senate to swiftly consider it, and remain ready to work with Congress to clarify that the bill prohibits bulk collection as noted above, as necessary.”

THIRD - THE COLLAPSE OF FEDERAL CONTROL OF OUR BORDERS

In the discourse over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...we have come to occupy a kind of moral safe house, where everyone is to blame so no one is guilty

The root of the pain and suffering of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the Israeli occupation of Palestine. End the occupation and our children will finally be able to walk the holy land as equals. Continue the occupation and our collective misery will endure for another generation, an inheritance ultimately unworthy of our two great peoples.

SAID HAMAD

Palestinian children also know the nightmare of abduction

SAID HAMAD

Contributed to The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Jun. 20 2014, 9:52 AM EDT
Last updated Friday, Jun. 20 2014, 10:31 AM EDT

Said M. Hamad is the chief representative for the Palestinian General Delegation in Canada

I couldn’t agree more with the sentiments expressed yesterday by Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird in his Globe op-ed, “It’s time to demilitarize the West Bank and Gaza.”

The first step toward demilitarization, naturally, would be to end Israel’s military occupation, which began in 1967 and which continues to prevent Palestinians from exercising their inalienable right to self-governance.

MORE RELATED TO THIS STORY

• Israel kills Palestinian teen in escalating West Bank arrest raids 

Mr. Baird reminds us that the new Palestinian unity government is in compliance with the Quartet principles; it has renounced violence, recognized Israel, and sworn to uphold all previous agreements.

The question is why should Israel be held to a different standard? Is it too much to ask that Israeli governments abide by the same principles: recognize Palestine, renounce violence, and uphold all previous agreements?

In the discourse over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I believe we have come to occupy a kind of moral safe house, where everyone is to blame so no one is guilty.

This logical and ethical fallacy has been thrown into stark relief by the suspected kidnapping of three missing Israeli teenagers, Eyal Yifrach, 19, Naftali Frankel, 16, and Gil-ad Shaar, 16. The Palestinian Authority is co-operating fully in the search and we are all praying for their safe return. Children should be off-limits and no double standards should be tolerated.

It therefore bears reminding that Palestinian families are all too familiar with the nightmare of child abduction. According to Defence for Children International (DCI), each year approximately 500-700 Palestinian children – some as young as 12 years old – are detained in the Israeli military prison system, where a 2013 UNICEF report noted ill-treatment of children is “widespread and systematic.”

The majority of children are abducted from their homes during the middle of the night by heavily armed Israeli soldiers. During 2013, 76.5 per cent of Palestinian children detained by the Israeli military in the occupied West Bank endured some form of physical violence during arrest, transfer, or interrogation. DCI notes that Palestinian child detainees are then prosecuted in Israeli military courts that “lack fundamental fair trial guarantees and are not designed or administered to respect children’s rights.” Some are not even charged or tried and languish indefinitely in what is euphemistically known as ‘administrative detention.’ These kidnappings have coincided with other recent tragedies. Last week, Israeli security forces murdered a Palestinian youth in the streets of Ramallah for participating in a demonstration. That news followed closely on the heels of the murder last month of two unarmed Palestinian teenagers – 15 and 17 years old – by Israeli forces using live ammunition.

With these facts in mind it’s time to reassess the current situation. The root of the pain and suffering of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the Israeli occupation of Palestine. End the occupation and our children will finally be able to walk the holy land as equals. Continue the occupation and our collective misery will endure for another generation, an inheritance ultimately unworthy of our two great peoples.

Dirty Stinking Cops

There are now an estimated 10,000 ISIS (al Qaeda) fighters in Iraq and Syria - Harry Reid on the Senate floor slammed Neocon “architects” of American intervention in Iraq, lambasting by name former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and columnist Bill Kristol

US trained ISIS in Jordan, Turkey and Syria:

Start at the 5:00 mark on this video:

President Obama can 'bypass Congress' over Iraq action

BBC 18 June 2014

US President Barack Obama had told Congressional leaders he does not need lawmakers' approval for any action in Iraq, the top Senate Republican says.

Senator Mitch Mc McConnell was speaking after a meeting between the president and senior members of Congress.

Iraq has asked for US air strikes against advancing Sunni militants.

Meanwhile US Vice-President Biden and Iraqi PM Nouri Maliki discussed possible "additional measures" by the US to assist Iraqi forces.

The two men considered ways "to roll back the terrorists' advances", a White House statement said.

On Wednesday Mr Obama met Congressional leaders at the White House to discuss the US response to recent advances by ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant).

Speaking afterwards, Mr McConnell said the president had "indicated he didn't feel he had any need for authority from us for steps that he might take".

Correspondents say the White House has so far avoided the thorny question as to whether it needs Congressional authority for any military action in Iraq.

Jonathan Beale in Baghdad: Special forces are "ready to take on ISIS"

Last year the president did not seek consent for possible attacks against Syria, although he abandoned such a move once it became clear that Congress would not support it.

Earlier this month a number of lawmakers condemned the lack of congressional consultation over the release of army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl from the Taliban in Afghanistan in exchange for five Guantanamo Bay detainees.

Administration officials say the president may be able to act unilaterally in Iraq because its government has requested US air strikes against ISIS militants who have seized several key cities over the past week.

ISIS and their Sunni Muslim allies are also reported to be advancing in Diyala and Salahuddin provinces after they overran Iraq's second city, Mosul, last week.

The administration has not officially responded to Iraq's request for air support in its response to the offensive.

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says Mr Obama has a wide range of options, from air strikes to providing extra training, but that the US will - as a minimum - send in surveillance drones.

Ahead of Wednesday's meeting, Senate leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, said he did not "support in any way" getting American troops involved in the Iraqi "civil war".

Grand Ayatollah's spokesman Sheikh Abdul Mahdi Karbalai warned that Iraq was in grave danger

The administration itself has shown signs of frustration with Mr Maliki - who has long been accused of favouring the country's Shia Muslim majority and alienating Sunnis.

On Wednesday Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel told a congressional hearing: "This current government in Iraq has never fulfilled the commitments it made to bring a unity government together with the Sunnis, the Kurds, and the Shia."

'Danger to unity'

Hundreds of people have been killed since the start of the militant offensive, many of them believed to be captured soldiers publicly shot by ISIS-led firing squads.

Some 500,000 people have been internally displaced, according to UN estimates.

In an interview with the BBC, the representative of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the country's Shia spiritual leader, said warned against "a real danger which threatens Iraq and its unity".

Speaking to BBC world affairs editor John Simpson, Sheikh Abdul Mahdi Karbalai said the response should be "a stance which is adopted by people from all sects".

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said Tehran would not "spare any effort" to defend Shia holy shrines in Iraq against "mercenaries, murderers and terrorists".