Inside Rangel’s toughest challenge yet — and the changing electoral demographics and politics of Harlem.

U.S. Representative Charles Rangel at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Sept. 28, 2013.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

When he's in charge, Charlie Rangel charms. The Harlem Democrat, longtime dean of New York City's congressional delegation, calls order at large meetings with piercing whistles, fingers in his mouth gym teacher style. "Hey gang!" Rangel, 84, pipes in an old time uptown accent — part Barry White, part Groucho Marx ("certain" is pronounced "SOI-tan"). His pompadour glistens.

But when Rangel is threatened, out comes his scowls — and these days you can often see those thick eyebrows narrowing. He could lose the seat he's held since John Lennon and Yoko Ono played the Apollo Theater. And it may hinge on Rangel's own derisive remarks about an opponent's ethnicity.

"Just what the heck has he done besides saying he's a Dominican?" the 22-term congressman asked at the first televised debate June 6. He was referring to his main competitor, Adriano Espaillat, a state senator from the Washington Heights section of Manhattan who would be the first from the Caribbean island in Congress if he wins the four-person race (there's no Republican running).

Referring to what he claimed was Espaillat's fixation on his own heritage, Rangel told reporters after: "It's difficult to talk about...I mention it because — because it may be true."

Though Espaillat, who narrowly lost to Rangel two years ago, doesn't have a brilliant legislative record in nearly two decades in Albany, it's seen as above average. He sprinkles his speeches with Spanish and talks about his past as an undocumented immigrant. That kind of appeal to local nuance is what politicians do (think of Paul Ryan calling himself "a Catholic deer hunter — guilty as charged"). When Espaillat challenged Rangel unsuccessfully two years ago, he put out a flyer calling a Dominican Rangel backer a traitor, for which he now apologizes.

Rangel's objection that Espaillat hasn't done anything but talk about his Dominican roots may have been counterproductive. A congressional district once seen as the soul of Black America is now 55% Latino — and the majority of Latinos in the district are Dominican in origin. (It's about a quarter African-American and 12% white).

Rangel's remark also drew rebukes from Mayor de Blasio and the Rev. Al Sharpton and a smattering of unflattering headlines.

But was Rangel, a founder of the Congressional Black Caucus, callous — or cunning?

"This is a wily politician — he's got a lot of experience," says Angelo Falcón, a political scientist and co-founder of the National Institute for Latino Policy. "Anything he says is deliberate." (For the record, Falcón says he wasn't offended).

While the total population may be solidly Latino, Latinos account for less than half of eligible voters. There is a sizeable Puerto Rican community with long links to Rangel and, Falcón says, some tension with Dominican immigrants; all Puerto Ricans can vote.

For most of his 22 terms, the Congressman was the shoo-in. Now, racial trade-offs may be the most potent weapon left. He can still dance but the Rangel I've seen in recent days looks exasperated. He could well lose, forcing him to face an unfamiliar existence. Allies have deserted him. The stain of scandal lingers three-and-a-half years after he was humiliated with censure in the House of Representatives. And then there's the thing you don't talk about: Rangel is one of only two survivors of the "Gang of Four" Harlem Clubhouse he founded a half-century ago (the other is former Mayor David Dinkins).

Rangel famously says that after near-death combat in the Korean Conflict, he's never had a bad day. But the congressman isn't flashing that pearly smile as much.

"He's trying to grasp how these changes have taken place on his watch, and he's not been able to foresee it or change it or manipulate it," says Basil Smilke, a longtime Harlem Democratic consultant not working on the race. "So many things have happened by going around him, rather than going through him — and I think there's some frustration built into that."

Rangel says he was raised "on the other side of the tracks on Lenox Avenue in Harlem" by a abused mother and a deadbeat dad (of Puerto Rican heritage). In November 1950, while a member of an all-black battalion in the Korean War, he was wounded in a bloody fight with Chinese forces in the frozen hills of Kunu-ri. Wounded by shrapnel, he led several dozen comrades behind enemy lines. He was later awarded a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star.

A high school dropout at enlistment, Rangel returned and completed his GED, graduated college, went to law school and became a federal prosecutor, then state assemblyman. In 1970 he defeated scandal-scarred Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.

He helped enact several key bills, including empowerment zones, low-income housing tax credits and Obamacare. While it's hard to unseat an incumbent Democrat in New York City, Rangel also helped maintain his seat by the largesse he delivered as a member of the Ways and Means Committee — bacon that was supposed to multiply through years as chairman.

He didn't last two terms. In December 2010, he stood in the well of the House of Representatives for censure; he was found to have failed to pay income taxes and misused his office to solicit fundraising. Best capturing his failings is this New York Post picture snapped at a resort in (ironically) the Dominican Republic; the congressman failed to pay income taxes on a villa he rented.

It's not the first time Rangel was caught in questionable behavior. Here's my small but instructive experience: In 2002, Congress met in Lower Manhattan for the first time in 212 years — to mark the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. It was a solemn, patriotic day. I covered it — and saw Rangel chatting with a well-dressed passerby, who gave the congressman his card. A moment later, Rangel took a pen out of his pocket, stuck the cap between his teeth and drew a large dollar sign on the back.

The 2010 censure was fresher in voters' minds two years ago, when Espaillat first challenged Rangel. Ethics, and Dominican heritage, were Espaillat's twin pillars — perhaps summed up in one word, "cambio," Spanish for "change."

"Cambio," is still an Espaillat mantra, but there are crisper policy proposals and, more practically, he's knocking on doors. (There are two other candidates — the most viable a charismatic Harlem minister, Michael Walrond, who could siphon black votes from Rangel, or steal from Espaillat voters simply looking for a change. The fourth is Yolanda Garcia, a lesser know activist of Dominican descent who barely campaigns; she dismisses accusations she's working for Rangel to siphon votes.)

Perhaps sensing growing Dominican clout, Espaillat is now backed by a number of elected officials, some of whom backed Rangel the last time: the City Council speaker, who represents East Harlem and was born in Puerto Rico, and the Bronx Borough president.

"There is no secret, and there is no doubt, that the Dominican community continues to grow," Borough President Ruben Diaz, Jr. told me. "Not just in Manhattan. Look, the Bronx — we just surpassed Washington Heights as the area where we have the largest concentration of Dominicans outside of the Dominican Republic." (He says he endorsed Espaillat because they've known each other for years). De Blasio is neutral; his predecessor, Mike Bloomberg, backed Rangel last time.

Rangel is also touting his connections and his longevity. There is a sentimental undercurrent, although one many thought they saw the last of two years ago. Rangel again pleads for one last go — a respected exit. Who knows, though, if he wouldn't run again at age 86? It's hard to imagine Rangel exiling himself from the trappings of power — the chauffeured sedan and such. Even his iPad cover is emblazoned with the House of Representatives seal.

The congressman has done much to deserve the ambivalence of voters. And Lenox Avenue isn't the same as when Charlie Rangel first started shaking hands for votes.

At the same time, how odd indeed would New York politics be without him.

It came to me as I watched him debate a second time June 11. He was wearing a red tie tucked over a collar clip, a matching handkerchief flopping from his breast pocket.

In the "lightning round section," candidates are asked to respond with a simple yes or no. Rangel seemed unable to give a definitive opinion on the question: Is Harlem still the capital of Black America?

Finally, he rendered his clear answer:

"Well in terms of history, and culture and music and jazz and churches," he said, "and in my heart — you bet your sweet life."

Josh Robin is a reporter for NY1. He can be followed at @joshrobin.

The conversations never reached Obama, and Carney says he shut them down. “To the extent that there was lobbying by me, I was lobbying against it.”

Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press / MCT

WASHINGTON — White House officials at one point considered sending outgoing press secretary Jay Carney to Russia as United States ambassador, but Carney said Thursday the discussions were very preliminary and ended when he rejected the idea.

"The truth is some folks — not the president, I didn't discuss it with the president — looking at my record and my educational background and my experience thought, Oh that would be a great idea," said Carney, a former Moscow bureau chief for Time and Russian speaker, at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor Thursday.

The Daily Beast reported earlier this year said Carney was "lobbying" to get the Russia job. Carney heatedly denied those reports at the time.

"To the extent that there was any lobbying by me I was lobbying against it," Carney said. "Not that it was ever a real thing."

“We broke the country, and we do need to fix it. But we need to do it without risking more men’s and women’s lives.”

Iraqi military fighters

AP Photo/Iraqi Military via AP video

WASHINGTON — The veterans who served in the last war in Iraq and are now seeking Democratic votes in 2014 have been warning their fellow Democrats this week.

They say even limited steps that put U.S. military forces back in harm's way in Iraq would be a big mistake with ramifications for the future of Middle East foreign policy — and the Democratic Party's credibility with its progressive base.

"If we have airstrikes, we'll kill as many civilians as we do fighters. And that's not right or effective," said Seth Moulton, a former Marine Corps officer who led forces into combat during four tours of duty in Iraq. "We need to engage this problem. But it needs to be political engagement that comes first."

Moulton is out of the Marines and running for Congress in Massachusetts, mounting a primary bid against Democratic incumbent Rep. John Tierney. Moulton's campaign has been endorsed by former Iraq War commanding Gens. Stanley McChrystal and David Petraeus, but Moulton is quick to say unprompted that the war all three men served in "was a mistake."

More military engagement in Iraq would be doubling down on that mistake, he said.

"You have to make decisions in the present; you can't just make decisions based on past mistakes," Moulton said. "But that doesn't mean we can ignore the past. We have to be very thoughtful about the long-term effects of our actions."

Progressives have warned the White House in recent days that a new engagement with Iraq could divide the Democratic base ahead of the 2014 elections, turning the anti-war left against Obama (who in 2008 was the movement's champion). Moulton said a Democratic split over Iraq could be in the cards if Obama goes ahead with military action.

It's a sentiment shared by Ruben Gallego, a former enlisted Marine and Democratic member of the Arizona state legislature. He's running in an open Democratic-leaning seat, and has taken a strong stance opposing new military action in Iraq. He said he's watching the run-up to new military action in Iraq, strongly favored by many advocates of the last Iraq War, in disbelief.

"It's like a horrible sequel to a horrible movie," he said. "The people that caused us to launch the invasion of Iraq are coming out for the after vaudeville show and trying to basically recuperate their reputations with further potential bloodshed. It's ridiculous."

"The men and women who died on the errors of these men and the hubris of these men should never be forgotten," he continued. "To think that they have any kind of validity in Washington or in the media in terms of their opinion when it comes to Iraq is absolutely sickening. It would be like asking Bernie Madoff to give advice on how to reform Wall Street."

Moulton says airstrikes are a bad idea, full stop. Gallego said it's possible to use military assets in Iraq, but the bar he set for military action was very high.

"[Obama] has to prove that there's an absolute national interest in us getting involved and that Iraq cannot handle it themselves," he said. "He has to prove that it will be done with minimal impact to the United States military in terms of putting actual people in harm's way and also, at the same time, the Iraqi people. We cannot engage in another war where civilians are killed because it's only going to cause more of a problem."

Both Democratic vets favor a political, non-military solution to the current chaos in Iraq — a solution that is a difficult one to see — and insist that military intervention will only cause long-term problems. Moulton and Gallego say Obama needs to consult with Congress before taking military action, but they're not entirely sure that Congress is all that helpful when it comes to war.

"They're completely out of touch. We've never had fewer veterans in Congress in our nation's history," he said. "And there are very few people in Congress today who have any first-hand knowledge or experience with the Middle East."

"Statistically, that means we're more likely to go to war," Moulton said. "Which shouldn't be hard to understand. Veterans understand the costs. And it means that when we have to make very difficult decisions about places like Syria, Iran, and Iraq, we don't have as many people in Congress with the background or experience to make those decisions wisely."

Moulton and Gallego are Democrats running in blue states, where taking an anti-war stance is an easy move for a candidate to make. But some of their concerns about new military action in Iraq are shared by Sen. John Walsh, a Montana Democrat and Iraq War vet appointed to replace Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, who retired. Walsh is in one of the toughest races in country and on Wednesday he took to the Senate floor to urge Obama and Congress to use caution before engaging in new military action.

"America cannot afford another Iraq financially or the human costs that are associated with war," said Walsh, who earned a Bronze Star after leading his regiment from the Montana Army National Guard in Iraq. Though Walsh didn't expressly warn against airstrikes, he called on members of Congress itching to put forces back into battle in Iraq to slow down before it's too late.

"I think that too many of my fellow members of Congress are too abrupt and think too quickly about what we should do in Iraq," he said. "I think they need to take a a step back and think about the impacts, the second and third order effects of continuing to send our men and women over to Iraq."

Not all Democratic Iraq War vets are speaking out. Staff for Illinois Rep. Tammy Duckworth, who was severely wounded serving as an Army helicopter pilot in Iraq, did not make her available for an interview. Hawaii Rep. Tusli Gabbard, who served in Iraq, said this week about airstrikes, "Not only will they not be effective, they will actually be counter-productive" because "they will strengthen this Shiite-led government in Iraq, which is a puppet government for Iran, and will strain those tensions and further entrench us in what is a generations-old civil war."

Obama has ruled out ground troops in Iraq. But just about everything else — including unilateral military action without a vote in Congress — is still on the table. In a meeting with top congressional leaders at the White House Wednesday, Obama reportedly said the options he's considering don't need congressional approval.

Meanwhile the White House has been explicit in keeping military options on the table.

"The only thing the president has ruled out, and I want to be clear here, is sending U.S. troops back into combat in Iraq," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said at Wednesday's briefing. "But he continues to consider other options."

To veterans of the last Iraq War who politically side with Obama, the continued focus on military options is missing point of the the legacy of Iraq War, Gallego said.

"We have to be engaged in Iraq in one manner or another. But we need to be doing it in a constructive manner," he said. "We broke the country, we violated the Powell doctrine, and we do need to fix it. We need to do it without risking more men and women's lives, and also to create a sustaining, long-lasting democracy that is accepting of all the tribes and cultures of Iraq."

The Snowden effect.

Mark Wilson / Getty Images

Florida Rep. Alan Grayson is hosting a "crypto-party" on Capitol Hill for colleagues in Congress to learn how to use encryption technology next week, according to an invite sent from an aide in his office.

Dear Colleague,

Please join our offices and Access, a nonprofit organization dedicated to defending digital rights and open and secure communications online, for a "crypto party" on Capitol Hill. The event will feature experts who will explain how to protect your security online, how to assess your privacy risks online, encrypt your devices, chat securely, and anonymously browse the Internet.

Bring your personal devices if you would like help using encryption technologies. Refreshments will be provided. We hope you will stop by Rayburn 2200 on Monday, June 23 starting at 9:00 a.m. to learn more.

The event is being co-hosted by Grayson and by California Rep. Zoe Lofgren, both Democrats.

Crypto-parties are a do-it-yourself encryption movement founded in 2011 by an Australian internet activist named Asher Wolf. The parties, which involve groups of people getting together to learn encryption, usually host journalists or online activists — seldom politicians.

The event inside the halls of Congress illustrates just how mainstream the use of encryption has become since the revelations about the National Security Agency surveillance disclosed by Edward Snowden showed how widespread the government's online spying capabilities are. While he was still a contractor for the NSA, Snowden himself hosted a crypto-party in Hawaii in 2012, as reported by Wired. Members of Congress may have good reason to use encryption — the NSA has not denied surveilling them.

Spokespeople for Grayson and Lofgren did not immediately return requests for comment.

"This is the first crypto party we've done with U.S. lawmakers," said Amie Stepanovich, senior policy counsel at Access, the group that will teach encryption at the event. "We're excited about the opportunity to educate members and their staff on the importance of encryption tools and how to use them."

Stepanovich said it was still unknown which members of Congress would be in attendance.

“Your children need you. Your woman, your wife, she needs you. It’s time that you become a real man.”

Republican Rep. Tim Huelskamp talked Thursday about the need for husbands to step up and become "real men" — because their children need them, and their wives are "desperately looking for a husband" during a speech at the March for Marriage in Washington D.C. The Kansas Republican is one of the House's most conservative members.

Here's the video of Huelskamp's remarks:

View Video ›

"I wanna close with this, a message to every man in America, every man in this crowd, every husband in America," Huelskamp said. "Your children need you. Your woman, your wife, she needs you. It's time that you become a real man and stand up for those that need you. Love your family, love your wife, love your children because they desperately need you. They're desperately looking for a husband. They're desperately looking for a father. Be a real man of God, because this is about you. Marriage is about you, and your wife, and your children."

Here's an ad from the National Organization for Marriage which put on the event:

youtube.com

View Entire List ›

“My Twitters.” #tbt

In July of 2009, Sen. John McCain took to the Senate floor to condemn the misuse of Highway Funds.

Chris Adams / MCT

In what was most likely the first mention of Twitter on the Senate floor, McCain said this:

instagram.com

Because of this, the word "Twitters" is in the permanent congressional record at least twice.

View Entire List ›

The former governor’s remarks about House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s sexuality don’t jibe with MSNBC’s progressive format.

MSNBC

In a new profile of former Montana governor Brian Schweitzer, the paid MSNBC contributor revealed his thoughts about outgoing House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's sexuality:

"Don't hold this against me, but I'm going to blurt it out. How do I say this ... men in the South, they are a little effeminate," he offered when I mentioned the stunning news. When I asked him what he meant, he added, "They just have effeminate mannerisms. If you were just a regular person, you turned on the TV, and you saw Eric Cantor talking, I would say—and I'm fine with gay people, that's all right—but my gaydar is 60-70 percent. But he's not, I think, so I don't know. Again, I couldn't care less. I'm accepting."

The quote has raised doubts about Schweitzer's viability as a possible Democratic challenger to Hillary Clinton in 2016, but it also raises questions about whether that kind of rhetoric is acceptable to a progressive media outlet like MSNBC.

The remarks are the latest in a string of controversial comments from talent and staff that have resulted in bad press, apologies, and sometimes, firings for MSNBC.

Schweitzer traveled an interesting road to MSNBC. Before he was hired by the network in February of 2014, he claimed that MSNBC was a "hair on fire" media outlet and the prospect of working there was not something that he was interested in.

BuzzFeed's request for comment from MSNBC on Schweitzer's remarks has not been returned.

The president will send up to 300 military advisers to assist the Iraqi regime in its battle against ISIS, and is laying the groundwork for airstrikes.

Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press / MCT

WASHINGTON — President Obama announced American service members are going back to Iraq Thursday in a statement from the White House, but he emphasized that they are not going back to engage in ground combat.

At the same time, Obama reserved the right to launch air strikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) forces that have thrown Iraq into chaos.

The president said "up to 300" military advisers will be sent to Iraq to assist the Iraqi military in its fight against ISIS. Obama also said new surveillance assets and two "centers" on the ground in Iraq (one in north of the country and one in Baghdad) will aid in sharing intelligence with Iraqi forces.

Obama has already sent a carrier battle group to the Middle East as the situation in Iraq deteriorated. The president said the ships and other new assets in the region give the United States the option of direct strikes on ISIS.

"We will be prepared to take targeted and precise military action," Obama said.

It's not clear how Congress will react to Obama's new moves in Iraq. While some hawks have called for immediate U.S. involvement to protect the Iraqi regime from ISIS, a swatch of Democrats and Republicans have urged Obama to avoid taking action without a sign-off from lawmakers. Obama said he will work with Congress as the new Iraq involvement goes forward, but he didn't say whether or not Congress will have a say in what military actions are taken.

Obama, who entered office on the promise to end U.S. involvement in Iraq, took effort to emphasize that another full-scale war in the country was not his plan.

"Let me repeat what I've said in the past: American combat troops are not going to be fighting in Iraq again. We do not have the ability to simply solve this problem by sending in tens of thousands of troops and committing the kinds of blood and treasure that has already been expended in Iraq," Obama said. "Ultimately, this is something that is going to have to be solved by the Iraqis."

John Berman takes cable outrage to another level.

"Why don't you just lock the doors, shut the windows, and play with yourselves?" —CNN's John Berman

Watch the entire rant here:

“It’s a number that has a tendency to grow.”

Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Thursday morning that "you have to be careful sending special forces" to Iraq because "it's a number that has a tendency to grow." Pelosi was reacting to a question about reports the Obama administration considered deploying up to 100 special forces members to Iraq.

President Obama announced Thursday afternoon that the United States would send up to 300 military advisers to Iraq, emphasizing they will not be in combat.

Here's the video of Pelosi's remarks:

View Video ›

"Generally speaking, and I'd be interested to hear what the president has to say," Pelosi said. "You have to be careful sending special forces because it's a number that has a tendency to grow and so I'd like to context, purpose, timeline, and all the rest for anything like that. But in any situation under any president I would say let's proceed cautiously in that regard without thinking a hundred is a hundred."

“We have to think about what our national security interest is separate and apart from Iraq stabilizing itself as a country,” says Sen. Robert Menendez.

U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Several Senate Democrats were cautiously supportive of President Obama's announcement today that he would be sending up to 300 military advisers to assist the Iraqi military in the fight against ISIS forces.

Congress and the country has become increasingly weary of war and sharply skeptical of furthering the U.S involvement in Iraq, but Democrats appeared ready to support the president's plan and his openness to targeted airstrikes at some point in the future.

"We have to think about what our national security interest is separate and apart from Iraq stabilizing itself as a country," said New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, the chairman of the Foreign Relations committee. "For me, that means ISIS is a national security threat to the United States and I appreciate that the president wants actionable intelligence before he considers specific strikes against them. I support strikes once they can determine what are our high value targets which would produce very low or no civilian causalities."

Senators held a closed-door briefing on the situation in Iraq Thursday afternoon shortly after the president spoke. Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy called the briefing "incredibly sobering" and said says he and other skeptics may support a short-term military effort in Iraq.

Virginia's Tim Kaine was one of the first members out with a statement on the president's plan to send the additional military advisors a "prudent move."

"I am encouraged that the president is dispatching Secretary of State John Kerry to the Middle East to first try to improve political conditions in this challenging environment. The current situation in Iraq is ultimately a crisis of governance, which has allowed extremist groups to take advantage of disillusioned segments of the Iraqi population," Kaine said. "I'm also pleased that additional measures are being taken to protect our embassies and personnel serving at diplomatic posts in Iraq. The announcement of additional military advisors and assets is a prudent move to assess the ISIL threat, and I look forward to continued close consultation with the administration on any potential military action."

Kaine has been a proponent of changing the 9/11-era rules of war on terrorism, known as the Authorization for the Use of Military Force.

Obama emphasized Thursday there would not be a return to combat in Iraq, and called for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to work towards a more inclusive government, but did not say he should step down. Menendez also called on Maliki to do more to unite the religious factions of the country or he speculated "he may very well no longer be prime minister."

"From my perspective unless Maliki can move to an all inclusive government which I have seen him to be incapable of, then this will be a continuing challenge for Iraq," he said. "If people don't think they have a stake in their country than they will not fight for their country and they will not feel a part of their country and therefore those who are extremist can take advantage of those sentiments. Maliki must do something immediately to show that that is the case or he may very well no longer be prime minister."

Not everyone was supportive, however.

Sen. Jon Tester of Montana said flatly, "I don't support that," when asked about the president's announcement.

"I don't support putting any more assets into that country," he said.

“Clearly we’re focused on Iraq…But the group ISIL operates broadly and we would not restrict our ability to take action that is necessary to protect the United States.”

Image made from video posted by Iraqi0Revolution, a group supporting the al-Qaida breakaway Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)

AP Photo/Iraqi0Revolution via AP video

The United States isn't ruling out direct military action against the terror group ISIS even outside of Iraq and inside Syria, a senior administration official said on Thursday.

"The president, again, is focused on a number of potential contingencies that may demand U.S. direct military action," the official told reporters on a conference call following President Obama's announcement that the United States will send up to 300 military advisers to Iraq, where ISIS has taken over major cities and looks set to wage a campaign for Baghdad. "One of those is the threat from ISIL and the threat that that could pose, again, not simply to Iraqi stability but to U.S. personnel and to U.S. interests more broadly, certainly including our homeland."

"In that respect, we don't restrict potential U.S. action to a specific geographic space," the official said.

"The president's made clear time and again that we will take action as necessary, including direct U.S. military action if it's necessary to defend the United States against an imminent threat," the official said. "You know, clearly we're focused on Iraq. That's where our ISR resources have surged. That's where we're working to develop additional intelligence. But the group ISIL, again, operates broadly, and we would not restrict our ability to take action that is necessary to protect the United States."

The official cited other anti-terror operations elsewhere in the world, including actions against Al-Shabaab in Somalia, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, and the capture of Benghazi suspect Ahmed Abu Khatalla in Libya.

"We'll continue to focus on the evolving threat of ISIL as we consider different options," the official said.

The moderate Syrian opposition has been pushing for support for rooting out ISIS in Syria as well as in Iraq.

"I would like to remind those who promised us assistance and didn't follow through is a push for terrorists to win," said National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces President Ahmad Jarba in a speech this week to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. "And I ask here: Will there be a strike against ISIS in Iraq to push ISIS back into Syria? Will sectarian militias be left to do evil in Iraq and Syria? Will dealing with ISIS be an arbitrary process as per usual, or it will be based on a strategic plan to rid us of this cancer called ISIS?"

"So I ask, what are you waiting for?" Jarba said. "Are we going to wait until the Islamic State in Iraq and al Sham (ISIS) establishes its emirate state in two countries violating their sovereignty and sanctity?"

Obama announced on Thursday that the United States, which has boosted its intelligence gathering in Iraq, would be sending teams of military advisers to the country and would be weighing whether to carry out direct military action against ISIS.

Senior administration officials said the advisers were not primarily being sent to Iraq to order air strikes.

"We have not decided to have these types of teams calling in air strikes," an official said. "However it is the case that one of the things you can do at a joint operations center is share information and help them develop targets and plans for pursuing ISIL."

"Tactically speaking it's not an instance where their mission is to support that type of campaign," the official said.

“Do you think that Oswald was the only person to shoot Jack Kennedy, our president?” Rep. Pete Sessions replied, when asked a 9/11 truther question by a high school class.

Asked if the government was withholding information about 9/11 because it doesn't fit with the official narrative, Republican Rep. Pete Sessions replied with a question about who shot President John F. Kennedy.

"Do you think that Oswald was the only person to shoot Jack Kennedy, our president?" Sessions said in response to a student in a Berkner High School AP government class in December 2013.

Congressman Sessions was responding to a question that, remarkably and despite all evidence to the contrary, still pops up from time to time about what actually happened on 9/11. Unfortunately, innocent people never could have imagined such a horrific attack prior to its occurrence and because of that some people still might not believe what actually happened. The Congressman's response to that disbelief is clear. We know precisely what happened on September 11, 2001. Terrorists from al-Qaeda hijacked four planes, one of which was flown into the Pentagon here in Washington and another which was taken down by American heroes in Pennsylvania so that the terrorists could not kill more innocent people wherever the terrorists had intended to fly that plane.

Here's the video of Sessions' remarks:

View Video ›

"Do you think that Oswald was the only person who to shoot Jack Kennedy our president?" Sessions said. "I don't know. You know, if they go down there and recreate it, it's really hard for a guy with that rifle to pop-pop-pop. When my dad was the FBI director the number one question was 'Who really killed Kennedy?' I don't know. I don't know. I was in Washington; I wasn't close, but let me tell you what: That plane did come and land at the Pentagon and that was a bunch of evil people and I will tell you the guys that took down the plane over Pennsylvania were heroes and I will tell you that guys were thugs that initially came after us and we were innocent people who never thought this would happen."

View Entire List ›

“People are happy to let the president [move unilateraly] because leadership on both sides of the aisle know pretty well that the American people have Iraq fatigue pretty bad.”

AP Photo/Iraqi0Revolution via AP video

WASHINGTON — A top liberal in the House expects lawmakers will largely relent on the issue of congressional authorization following President Obama's decision Thursday to send military advisers to Iraq and begin laying the groundwork for possible airstrikes.

In the immediate aftermath of Obama's announcement there were signs in the Senate that Democrats were going to let the president ramp up U.S. involvement in Iraq without a formal sign-off from Congress.

Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, chair of the House Progressive Caucus, said he expects most of the rest of Congress to follow suit, despite bipartisan outcry before Friday from lawmakers demanding a say in future military involvement in Iraq.

Now that the broad outlines of the president's plan — no ground combat, no commitment to air strikes, reserving the right to launch limited attacks on ISIS — have been sketched out, Grijalva said most members of Congress will be happier not having to go on the record about the military involvement in Iraq one way or the other.

"Because, I believe, public opinion is not for an escalated re-engagement in Iraq by our military, [lawmakers] would rather have the president take whatever heat is coming from this, and there is heat, and take the political hit than have to deal with it [themselves] while we're in the throngs of a midterm election," Grijalva said. "And that goes for both sides."

Grijalva opposes Obama's moves in Iraq, calling the sending of advisers and the gearing up for airstrikes "a slippery slope." When it comes to congressional approval, he said demanding it is a "consistent" stance for members like him who complained George W. Bush acted unilaterally in Iraq in violation of the War Powers Act.

Progressives in Congress do have the outlines of a strategy to make their voice heard, but Grijalva Thursday afternoon it was still coming together in the wake of Obama's announcement. Early plans are to rally votes for a House amendment sponsored by California Democrat Barbara Lee banning "boots on the ground" in Iraq, though there was some disagreement over whether or not the 300 military advisers Obama is planning to send count or not. Grijalva said they did to him but said they didn't to Lee; Lee's office was slow to respond to questions about the amendment. The rest of the early plan centers around banging the drum about the War Powers Act and trying to force Obama to bring his plans to Congress for approval.

Some progressive groups have already begun laying the groundwork for organized opposition to Obama's moves in Iraq. In the hours after Obama's announcement Thursday, a couple of liberal groups put out statements condemning the president's plan while other groups said they were taking time to consider Obama's plan before putting out their own statements.

Both inside Congress and without, Grijalva says he doesn't expect the level of complaints to reach anywhere near what it was in the early 2000s.

"There are going to be the predictable voices," he said. "But the fact that [members] aren't saying anything about it should be an indication that they are worried a little bit about what their own constituencies are thinking in their individual districts. I don't think there will be the human cry. It's a very limited engagement. But like I said, it's a slippery slope...and if it escalates, then I think the volume of the opposition is going to increase."

Progressive stalwarts in the House were already expressing fretting that the president may soon find himself in another war — whether he wants one or not.

"The President does not want to get into another endless war. When you start increasing the advisors there, things happen, you get sucked deeper and deeper and deeper," said Rep. Jm McGovern, a Democrat from Massachusetts. "I have no doubt the president doesn't want to get into another pro-longed war but I worry that we may be positioning ourselves where we may get sucked into one. I hope I'm wrong but thats where my anxiety is."

Kate Nocera contributed to this report.

A subtle but significant shift in rhetoric.

Sen. Dick Durbin

Andrew Burton / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Democrats are shifting their rhetoric on the flood of Central American undocumented immigrant minors entering the United States, moving away from calling them "immigrants" in favor of "refugees."

Thousands of children, many under the age of 8, have crossed the border in recent months from Central America.

"Let's be clear: This is not an immigration crisis," Sen. Bob Menendez said Thursday during a press conference to unveil a package of new proposals for addressing the crisis. "This is a humanitarian and refugee crisis. It's being caused in large measure by thousands in Central America who believe it is better to run for their lives and risk dying, than stay and die for sure."

"The bottom line is that we must attack this problem from a foreign policy perspective, a humanitarian perspective, a criminal perspective, immigration perspective, and a national security perspective," Menendez argued.

The shift in language may seem subtle, but it's significant: While "immigrants" conjures up images of Latin Americans crossing the desert in search of jobs, the public views "refugees" much more sympathetically, as evidenced by successful charity efforts to assist displaced populations in war-torn parts of the globe.

Republicans have increasingly sought to tie the crisis along the border to President Obama's push for changes to immigration laws, as well as his decision to halt deportations for DREAMers already in the United States.

For instance, the House Judiciary Committee next week will hold a hearing on the issue titled "An Administration-made Disaster: The South Texas Border Surge of Unaccompanied Alien Minors," and some Republicans routinely charge children are being drawn to the United States by promises of not being deported.

Those attacks have prompted bitter recriminations from Democrats. "For them, it is a political crisis, a political opportunity," Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin said Thursday.

Indeed, Menendez drew a direct comparison to the refugee situation in other parts of the world, arguing, "We need to do all we can to stabilize the situation in Central America and stem the flow of children and refugees to our borders, a tragedy that is simply unacceptable in America and unacceptable in our hemisphere."

Democratic Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard pointed to a recent report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on the flood of children from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala as evidence their migration to the United States is not a simple matter of immigration. "The number one reason these kids are leaving their homes is to escape endemic violence, including extortion, killings, and forced recruitment into street gangs."

That is not, of course, to say Democrats aren't using the crisis to aid their push for immigration changes.

In addition to calling for the children to be given legal representation and an aid package to Central America, the lawmakers made clear their proposal also includes passage of broader reforms.

"The humanitarian crisis demonstrates the need for Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform and for everyone to work together to curtail trafficking and smuggling," Sen. Mazie Hirono said.

LINK: White House Plans To Move 1,000 Immigrant Minors To Richmond, Baltimore

Even on a federal level, legal difficulties remain for couples living in states that don’t recognize same-sex couples’ marriages. One year after the Supreme Court struck down DOMA, Obama administration readies push to tie up loose ends.

Olivier Douliery - Pool / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department will announce this week that it has done all it can to recognize same-sex couples' marriages and that Congress will have to act for final recognition — primarily within Veterans Affairs and the Social Security Administration — to take place.

In the meantime, though, those two agencies plan to announce Friday that they are taking steps at this time to provide the recognition for same-sex couples that they have determined is legally possible now, even in the absence of a congressional fix.

For instance, if a person married to someone of the same sex applies for Social Security benefits and moves from a state where the marriage is legal to a state that does not recognize the marriage, the Social Security Administration (SSA) is announcing it will not reassess the person's eligibility status. The VA, for its part, will now allow same-sex couples in a "committed relationship" to be eligible for burial in VA cemeteries.

The Supreme Court ruled last June that the federal government's ban on recognition of same-sex couples' marriages in the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. President Obama then directed Attorney General Eric Holder to work with the various agencies and departments to provide recognition wherever possible.

Changes, from federal employees' benefits to immigration to income taxes, that allowed married same-sex couples to receive the same treatment as opposite-sex couples were announced quickly in the months that followed. Notably, most policy announcements made clear that the marriages would be recognized by the federal government so long as they were recognized by the jurisdiction where the marriage took place — referred to as the "place of celebration."

In a few areas, however, a more restrictive "place of domicile" rule applied by statute or regulation, meaning that the marriage would only be recognized by the federal government if it was recognized by, generally speaking, the state where the couple lives. Although some of the regulatory provisions have been changed over the past year to allow the more broad "place of celebration" rule to apply, Social Security and veterans benefits have limits under statute that the administration has determined can only be changed by Congress.

In a Thursday meeting with LGBT advocates at the White House, Assistant Attorney General Stuart Delery summarized the changes made — which are being presented in a brief report being released by the Justice Department this week — and addressed the specific areas in which the Social Security Administration and Veteran Affairs Department have been able to work around the "place of domicile" statutory restrictions to provide some benefits in the absence of a legislative fix.

A person familiar with Delery's presentation provided BuzzFeed with a summary of the changes being announced in the two departments.

For both Social Security and Veterans Affairs, where the state recognizes same-sex couples' marriages, then federal government will as well. The person noted, however, that even going that far in the VA required additional action because of the language within Title 38 — which governs veterans' benefits — that had a DOMA-like limitation specific to veterans' benefits. The administration, however, announced it would stop enforcing that provision following the DOMA ruling and a subsequent federal trial court ruling that the provisions in Title 38 were unconstitutional.

In addition to that expected step, the person explained, the administration has found a "supportable, legal basis" for allowing the SSA to not revisit an applicant's state of residence if they move at any point during the application process or after. What this means, the person said, is that as long as someone is living in a state that recognizes same-sex couples' marriages at any point while their application is pending, even if they move during or after that application process, SSA will not revisit their status or qualification for benefits based on having moved to a state that does not recognize their marriage.

Finally — in a decision that the source said impacts Colorado, Nevada, and Wisconsin — the administration found a basis for conferring all Social Security benefits to same-sex couples in those states. This decision is based on language in the Social Security Act that says that if a person is in a state, even if it doesn't recognize marriage equality, that has other provisions in state law that allow a person to inherit from a same-sex partner on the same terms as a spouse, then SSA has the authority to confer full benefits.

As to Veterans Affairs, the person said that there are several groupings of benefits that the administration has determined are not limited by the "place of domicile" rule, which include three main areas: (1) the transfer of post-9/11 GI Bill education benefits to dependents; (2) participation and benefits conferred under the service members group life insurance program, veterans group life insurance program, and family service members group life insurance program; and (3) survivors and dependents education assistance.

In addition, the person said, the ability for a service member's spouse to be buried in a VA cemetery is limited under law. Under a separate provision in law that allows the secretary of the VA to waive that requirement, the administration has determined that the secretary can do so and that it will allow any individual in a "committed relationship" with a service member to be buried in a VA cemetery. Similarly, the administration found a legally supportable basis to allow the stipend that would usually go to cover the cost of a veteran's funeral to be paid out to the same-sex spouse even in a non-recognition state based on finding authority elsewhere in the VA law.

The changes being announced Friday, the person noted, are aimed at showing that the administration has been as forward leaning as it has determined would pass legal muster in order to provide recognition to married same-sex couples, regardless of where they live.

Nonetheless, the person said, the administration believes Congress will need to finish the job and make the statutory fixes necessary to providing full recognition. Specifically, the person noted legislation introduced by Sens. Patty Murray and Mark Udall to address the Social Security language and by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen to address the VA language. The other option, the person said, was the Respect for Marriage Act, which would go further than the issue-specific fixes to guarantee "certainty" of recognition by the federal government across the country.

“Moving forward, we will no longer be able to brief any of you in advance of major decisions or developments,” White House staffer tells LGBT leaders.

Victor Pelaez/Victor Pelaez

WASHINGTON — The White House is threatening to cut LGBT groups out of the conversation following a BuzzFeed report on the federal government's treatment of married same-sex couples.

"Apparently one or more of you chose to ignore our request regarding the embargoed nature of this evening's meeting," Gautam Raghavan from the White House Office of Public Engagement wrote to an undisclosed group, referencing BuzzFeed's Thursday night report, which followed a Thursday meeting the White House held with LGBT organization leaders.

"Moving forward, we will no longer be able to brief any of you in advance of major decisions or developments," he wrote.

The White House released information about its year-long response to last June's Supreme Court decision striking down part of the Defense of Marriage Act late Thursday. Several departments and agencies — including the Justice, Labor, and Veterans Affairs departments and the Social Security Administration — released further information Friday morning.

The Obama administration has aggressively fought leaks.

Email obtained by BuzzFeed:

View Entire List ›

The administration will be sending a significant number of immigration judges and staff to help speed up the processing of children for asylum and deportation cases.

Hundreds of mostly Central American immigrant children are being processed and held at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Nogales Placement Center in Nogales, Ariz.

Ross D. Franklin/Pool via Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is setting up new family-detention centers for undocumented immigrants that are coming over the border, Vice President Joe Biden is expected announce during his trip in Guatemala.

The administration will be sending a significant number of immigration judges and staff to help speed up the processing the children for asylum and deportation cases.

The detention centers are sure to spark anger from immigration activists who have argued that the administration should use ankle-monitors and other means for keeping track of detainees while they await their hearings.

Children sleep in a holding cell at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection processing facility in Brownsville, Texas.

Eric Gay/ Pool via Associated Press

LINK: Democrats, Immigration Activists Slam Obama Immigrant Family-Detention Plan

View Entire List ›

“I just, I don’t believe it. That’s your problem. Nobody believes you.”

Rep. Paul Ryan tore into IRS commissioner John Koskinen Friday at a House committee hearing on what happened to the emails of Lois Lerner and other IRS employees.

"I am sitting here listening to this testimony. I just, I don't believe it. That's your problem. Nobody believes you," Ryan said. "This is not being forthcoming. This is being misleading again. This is a pattern of abuse, a pattern of behavior that is not giving us any confidence that this agency is being impartial. I don't believe you. This is incredible."

"I've had a long career. This is the first time anybody has ever said they don't believe me," Koskinen countered.

"I don't believe you," Ryan shot back.

Watch the whole clip below:

“I don’t see them getting back together and we need to deal with that reality.”

Former Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency chief Michael Hayden warned Thursday that "Iraq has ceased to exist" and that the country is now divided into three parts — a reality that U.S. policy makers must embrace.

Speaking with NewsmaxTV, Hayden said the U.S. should treat the area in Iraq under the control of ISIS, which he called Sunnistan, the same way the U.S. treats Waziristan, the tribal region of Pakistan with a heavy Taliban presence.

Here's the video of Hayden's comments:

View Video ›

"I think Iraq has pretty much ceased," Hayden said. "It's divided into three parts. You've got Kurdistan which is quite healthy. You've got Sunnistan which right now is controlled by terrorists, and you've got the rough state of Iraq which I'll call Shiastan which is the only part under (Iraqi Prime Minister) Nouri al'Maliki's control. I don't see them getting back together and we need to deal with that reality."