President Barack Obama will appoint a White House budget officer to the be the new acting Internal Revenue Service commissioner, an announcement made following a fresh declaration from the president that he knew nothing about the inspector general’s report detailing improper IRS actions until it was leaked.

After announcing the resignation of acting IRS Director Steven Miller on Wednesday evening, the president emerged Thursday afternoon to answer questions from the press about actions taken by IRS employees to single out conservative and Tea Party advocacy groups for extra scrutiny in their applications for nonprofit status.

"I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the I.G. report before the I.G. report had been leaked ... through the press," said Obama. "Typically, the I.G. reports are not supposed to be widely distributed or shared. They tend to be, you know, a process that everybody's trying to protect the integrity of. But, what I'm absolutely certain of is that the actions that were described in that I.G. report are unacceptable."

The president declined to endorse appointing an independent counsel to investigate the controversy -- an idea that some Republicans have demanded. The criminal investigation initiated by the Justice Department, combined with the administration's efforts to cooperate with lawmakers in their investigations, Obama argued, should be sufficient.

"I think it's going to be sufficient for us to be working with Congress," he said.

Just hours after that event, the White House said that Daniel Werfel, current controller of the Office of Management and Budget, would be named acting IRS chief, effective May 22.

In a press release, Obama said, "The American people deserve to have the utmost confidence and trust in their government, and as we work to get to the bottom of what happened and restore confidence in the IRS, Danny has the experience and management ability necessary to lead the agency at this important time."

Later Thursday, NBC News confirmed that a second top Internal Revenue Service official has announced plans to leave the agency. An internal IRS memo says that Joseph Grant, commissioner of the agency's tax exempt and government entities division, will retire June 3.

Of the three controversies that dominated Washington this week, the IRS issue has proven the most politically noxious for Obama.

The White House has also been besieged by new questions about its response to last year's terrorist attack against a diplomatic installation in Benghazi, Libya, along with revelations that the Justice Department had monitored Associated Press journalists' phone records.

The IRS and AP cases have been particularly thorny politically for one of Obama's top allies in the cabinet, Attorney General Eric Holder, who on Wednesday faced grilling on Capitol Hill for his role in both controversies. Republicans renewed some of their longstanding demands that Holder resign his position, demands which the president rejected on Thursday.

"I have complete confidence in Eric Holder as attorney general," Obama said.

After weathering blistering criticism from Republicans, the administration has begun trying to craft its response to all three issues.

To that end, Obama on Thursday announced new measures meant to enhance security for U.S. diplomatic postings abroad as part of the administration's continued reaction to the Benghazi incident.

"I am intent on making sure we do everything we can to prevent another tragedy like this from happening again," Obama said at the White House.

His remarks come amid intensified efforts by Republican members of Congress to probe the Obama administration's reaction to the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks, which left four Americans dead, including U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens.

The administration has sought to turn the narrative on that matter in its favor beginning Wednesday, when it released emails documenting how the administration crafted its first public responses to the attack.

Obama called on members of Congress in both parties to "come together" and work to authorize legislation to help fortify embassies and other diplomatic installations as a tribute to the deceased in Benghazi.

Jason Reed / Reuters

President Barack Obamaand Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan arrive for a joint news conference in the White House Rose Garden in Washington, May 16, 2013.

Still, the controversy involving the AP helped prompt the administration to renew its efforts to have Congress authorize a federal shield law that would protect journalists from having to disclose confidential details of their work in court.

"To the extent that this case has prompted renewed interest with respect to how do we strike that balance properly, I think that now's the time for us to revisit that legislation," Obama said. "I think that's a worthy conversation to have."

Whether any of Obama's actions will placate Republicans, who are eager to use these controversies to gain political traction and slow or halt the president's second-term agenda, remains to be seen.

Lawmakers in both parties plan a series of high-profile hearings, beginning on Friday, on each of the controversies. And Republicans in particular have been eager to make political hay of the administration's recent missteps.

Speaking before the president this morning on Capitol Hill, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the controversies were a mark of “remarkable arrogance” by the president and his administration, though Boehner said that the Republican-controlled House was still primarily focused on the business of legislating.

NBC's Peter Alexander and Kelly O'Donnell contributed to this report.

Related stories:

• First Thoughts: White House makes moves to stop the political bleeding
• Obama calls IRS flap 'inexcusable,' announces resignation of acting IRS chief

This story was originally published on Thu May 16, 2013 12:06 PM EDT

With controversies growing over a Justice Department subpoena of Associated Press phone records and the Internal Revenue Service’s scrutiny of conservative groups, Attorney General Eric Holder was preparing to face the House Judiciary Committee in an oversight hearing Wednesday.

The hearing comes a day after Holder told reporters that he’d ordered an investigation to see if there were criminal violations in the IRS examination of conservative advocacy groups that had sought nonprofit status.  An inspector general’s report released Tuesday blamed poor management at the IRS for the scrutiny of Tea Party and other conservative groups and said the agency has been slow to correct the problems.

The attorney general also said he’d recused himself last year from any involvement in the Justice Department’s investigation of national security leaks. Holder said he took the step to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Holder will certainly field questions on both the phone records seizures and the IRS investigation but there are no mentions of either in prepared opening remarks he’s expected to deliver to the committee. 

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder appears at a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington, May 14, 2013.

The Associated Press reported Monday that phone records of its reporters and editors had been subpoenaed and seized in that probe.

Holder said in a press conference Tuesday that decisions in the leak investigation were being made by Deputy Attorney General James Cole and “the deputy attorney general would have been the one who ultimately had to authorize the subpoena that went to the AP.”

Cole wrote to the AP on Tuesday that seeking phone records from media organizations “is undertaken only after all other reasonable alternative investigative steps have been taken.” He said that the Justice Department sought the AP phone records only after a comprehensive investigation which included conducting over 550 interviews and reviewing tens of thousands of documents.

Holder said Tuesday that it “certainly not the policy of this administration” to target reporters. What has been done in the leaks investigation was, he said, “not as a result of a policy to get the press.”

Previewing Wednesday’s hearing, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., indicated that the panel will question Holder on a wide range of topics, including the subpoena of AP phone records and the IRS vetting of conservative groups.

“Any abridgement of the First Amendment is very concerning, especially reports that the IRS targeted conservative groups for unwarranted scrutiny during an election year,” Goodlatte said. “Members of the committee will also ask pointed questions about the Justice Department’s decision to obtain two months’ worth of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press. Congress and the American people expect answers and accountability.”

The Virginia Republican also said that in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings, the committee will want Holder to address how the Obama administration can better share information among federal agencies “so that we can better detect and deter future homegrown terrorist attacks.”

But the leaks investigation seems likely to be a dominant topic of the hearing.

Holder told reporters Tuesday, “This was a very, very serious leak. I’ve been a prosecutor since 1976 – and I have to say that this is among, if not the most serious, in the top two or three most serious leaks that I’ve ever seen. It put the American people at risk – and that is not hyperbole.”

The leaks probe was undertaken at a time of deep congressional concern that Obama administration officials, including CIA chief John Brennan when he served as President Obama’s counterterrorism advisor at the White House, were providing news organizations with selective bits of secret information.

The top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, voted against confirming Brennan as CIA chief in March because he said Brennan had not been candid in discussing his own role in leaking.

Chambliss said he was “deeply disturbed” by Brennan's responses to the Senate committee regarding leaks of classified information, especially the disclosure relating to the al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula underwear bomb plot in May of 2012.

This story was originally published on Wed May 15, 2013 9:22 AM EDT

President Barack Obama on Monday derided the controversy over inter-agency talking points drafted in the wake of last year’s Benghazi attack, saying that charges of a politically motivated cover-up are a “sideshow” and  little more than a “political circus.” 

Jim Bourg / REUTERS

President Barack Obama talks about the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya as Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron listens during a joint news conference in the East Room of the White House, May 13, 2013.

“The whole thing defies logic,” Obama said at a White House event with British Prime Minister David Cameron. “And the fact that this whole thing keeps getting churned out, frankly, has a lot to do with political motivations.” 

The president  defended his administration against persistent allegations that it tried to disguise the Benghazi attack as a spontaneous riot instead of an act of terror – charges Obama dismisses as little more than a “political circus.” 

Those accusations again dominated headlines last week, when leaked emails showed that State Department officials suggested changes to the official talking points crafted after the Sept. 11, 2012 incident. That attack on the diplomatic compound left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Those changes included the deletion of mentions to specific terrorist groups. 

On Monday, Obama said those edits reflected the intelligence agency’s lack of immediate clarity about exactly what prompted the attack, which occurred at the same time that a video offensive to Muslims had prompted spontaneous riots elsewhere in the Middle East. 

“The whole issue of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow,” he said. “What we have been very clear about throughout was that immediately after this event happened, we were not clear who exactly had carried it out, how it had occurred, what the motivations were.” 

“There’s no there, there,” he said of the leaked emails, which congressional investigators reviewed earlier this year but which were not reported on until last week. 

Noting that National Counterterrorism Center chief Matt Olsen specifically labeled the assault “an act of terrorism” just days after attack, Obama said Republicans who characterize the administration’s response to the attack as anything other than due diligence on the part of intelligence officials are merely trying to exact political damage on their Democratic opponents. 

“Who executes some sort of cover up or effort to tamp things down for three days?” he asked. 

Despite the president’s evident frustration with the GOP’s line of questioning on Benghazi, the administration will get little respite from congressional skeptics, who have pledged to keep probing its response to the Libya attack. 

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., has asked that Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Admiral Mike Mullen – the two officials who conducted an independent review of the incident on behalf of the State Department – be interviewed by investigators. 

Issa has said that the independent review failed to adequately question top State Department officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. 

Senators John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire have called for a Joint Select Committee to investigate the matter. 

The three Republicans said that the president's statements Monday run counter to his public descriptions of Benghazi in the weeks after the deaths. 

Obama "repeatedly and specifically refused, in the heat of his re-election campaign, to label Benghazi a terrorist attack," they wrote in a statement Monday afternoon. 

This story was originally published on Mon May 13, 2013 3:42 PM EDT

Will Israel’s strikes in Syria spur U.S. involvement?... On that “red line” and how Libya (and other conflicts) has shaped the administration’s thinking on Syria… Recapping Obama’s Ohio State commencement speech… Mark-up time for the “Gang of Eight” immigration legislation… Wrapping up the NRA conference… WaPo poll: Cuccinelli leads McAuliffe… Remember, candidates matter… Does Sanford’s GOP base show up tomorrow?… Steve King passes on IA SEN bid… And Jessica Taylor’s early look at the Top 10 House races to flip in 2014.

Uriel Sinai / Getty Images

Israeli Merkava tanks participate in a drill near the border with Syria at the Israeli-annexed Golan Heights on May 6, 2013.

*** Will Israel’s strikes in Syria spur U.S. involvement? The Washington Post on the weekend’s biggest news: “Israel’s reported airstrikes in Syria — and the threat of a retaliatory strike by the Syrian government — are likely to accelerate the decision-making of the Obama administration, which was already moving toward a sharp escalation of U.S. involvement in the two-year-old crisis. Senior officials said the deployment of U.S. troops to Syria remains unlikely, but they have indicated that a decision will come within weeks on options ranging from the supply of weapons to the Syrian rebels to the use of U.S. aircraft and missiles to ground President Bashar al-Assad’s air power by destroying planes, runways and missile sites inside Syria.” As NBC’s Andrea Mitchell noted on NBC’s “Weekend Nightly News,” Israel used American-made weapons and most likely had U.S. intelligence support to strike those Syrian targets. And, in an interview with Telemundo while the president was in Latin American, President Obama made it clear that the U.S. supports what he sees as Israel’s right to defend itself from what could be game-changing weapons. But remember, Israel is focused on what is essentially a side conflict with Syria, and that is Assad’s support of Hezbollah.

*** Red lines (don’t, don’t do it): On Sunday, the New York Times reported that administration officials realize the president’s previous “red line” comment on Syria -- which he made to one of your authors during an Aug. 2012 press conference -- was a mistake. That’s something we’ve reported on, but the Times goes into more detail: “‘The idea was to put a chill into the Assad regime without actually trapping the president into any predetermined action,’ said one senior official, who, like others, discussed the internal debate on the condition of anonymity. But ‘what the president said in August was unscripted,’ another official said. Mr. Obama was thinking of a chemical attack that would cause mass fatalities, not relatively small-scale episodes like those now being investigated, except the ‘nuance got completely dropped.’” Georgetown’s Daniel Byman argues that presidents should draw “red lines” that the U.S. will tolerate. “The muddle over the red line on Syria’s chemical weapons should make the Obama administration and its successors think twice before issuing similar public threats without considering what happens if the red line is breached or if an adversary continues committing atrocities that fall short of the line.

*** How Libya (and other conflicts) has shaped the administration’s thinking on Syria: The administration is leery of being pushed into doing something big in Syria too soon. Look for incremental ramping up, including direct arming of the rebels and continued diplomatic efforts to get Putin off of Assad’s side. One thing that colors the Obama administration’s decision-making in all of this is Libya. As “clean” of an operation and intervention as it was, the instability there is very much on the forefront of the Obama administration’s mind. Who fills the vacuum? Watching this administration manage the Arab Spring, don’t overlook how each event has impacted a later decision (from Iran to Egypt to Libya to Yemen and Syria). The experience in one country has colored the decision making going forward.

*** Recapping Obama’s Ohio State commencement speech: President Obama’s commencement addresses are always interesting to watch/read, because they offer additional examples of how he views U.S. government and society. They become the windows to his core ideological beliefs which, believe it or not, he rarely actually talks about in public. And his commencement address at Ohio State University yesterday was no exception -- he talked about the importance of community (over individualism) and an engaged citizenry.  “In the aftermath of darkest tragedy [in Boston, Texas, and Connecticut], we have seen the American spirit at its brightest. We’ve seen the petty divisions of color, class, and creed replaced by a united urge to help… That’s what citizenship is. It’s the idea at the heart of our founding—that as Americans, we are blessed with God-given and inalienable rights, but with those rights come responsibilities—to ourselves, to one another, and to future generations.” More Obama: “I will ask you for two things: to participate, and to persevere. After all, your democracy does not function without your active participation. At a bare minimum, that means voting, eagerly and often. It means knowing who’s been elected to make decisions on your behalf, what they believe in, and whether or not they deliver.”  

*** Mark-up time: The Senate Judiciary Committee this week is slated to mark up -- that is, add amendments at the committee level -- to the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” immigration-reform legislation. Politico: “Foes and friends of reform are set to offer a slew of amendments to the mammoth immigration bill this week as the Senate Judiciary Committee begins to mark it up. But observers believe that between Democrats, who hold the majority on the committee, and the two Gang of Eight Republicans who wrote the bill, it will emerge from committee largely unscathed. ‘I suspect it’ll come back [from committee] with a 13-5 margin, and that’ll be a tremendous momentum going to the Senate floor,’ said Frank Sharry, executive director of the pro-reform group America’s Voice.” On “Meet the Press” yesterday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy said, “I think the so-called ‘Gang of Eight,’ four Democrats, four Republicans, across the political spectrum, deserve an enormous amongst of credit for the work they've done. I met with them many times. And I think we can get it passed.

*** Wrapping up the NRA conference: NBC’s Tom Curry wrapped up Friday’s speeches at the National Rifle Association conference in Houston. Republicans -- including Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, and Rick Perry -- “addressed the National Rifle Association’s annual meeting in Houston Friday, celebrating the defeat of gun legislation in the Senate, assailing the media, and offering a strong defense of the powerful lobbying organization,” Curry wrote. By the way, Politico reports how not a single Democrat spoke at last week’s NRA conference in Houston. The NRA -- the National Republican Association? It’s a concern some inside the organization have, and it’s why there have been so many mixed signals when it comes to where the NRA stood on certain issues, including expanded background checks. Some inside the NRA did want to work with their Democratic allies and forge some compromise (even if the NRA didn’t OFFICIALLY support it). These are folks who want the “R” in NRA to stand for “Rifle” and not “Republican.” But those folks have lost out as the NRA -- internally -- has become more partisan.

*** WaPo poll: Cuccinelli leads McAuliffe: As we and others have pointed out, this year’s Virginia gubernatorial race is a contest between two flawed candidates. But Ken Cuccinelli (R) has always had one advantage over Terry McAuliffe (D): He has a base, while his Democratic opponent doesn’t -- at least not yet. And that edge is evident in a new Washington Post poll, which has Cuccinelli ahead by five points, 46%-41%. “Among all registered voters, [Cuccinelli is] backed by 95 percent of Republicans, 73 percent of conservatives and 62 percent among white men. By contrast, compared with Obama’s win seven months ago, McAuliffe, the former Democratic National Committee chairman, is badly underperforming among key Democratic constituencies he would need to prevail — young voters, women, African Americans and those in the vote-rich areas of Northern Virginia.” The good news for McAuliffe? The poll found that barely 10 percent say they are following the campaign ‘very closely’ and that nearly half of the electorate says they’re either undecided or could change their minds.” Neither party is happy about its standard-bearer, but Cuccinelli is giving the GOP establishment a reason to believe since he’s executing a smart campaign so far. McAuliffe has work to do to get the Democratic establishment comfortable again

*** Another VA GOV poll coming out on Wednesday: By the way, there will be another poll coming out on the Cuccinelli-McAuliffe -- NBC/Marist surveys on Virginia and New Jersey, which we’ll unveil on Wednesday morning on MSNBC’s “Daily Rundown.”

*** Remember, candidates matter: Given the Washington Post poll, tomorrow’s special election in South Carolina, and the tighter-than-expected special Senate race in Massachusetts, it’s always important to remember this political truism: Candidates and campaigns matter. In Virginia, both Cuccinelli and McAuliffe are flawed, but which one has bigger flaws and which one is running a better campaign? In South Carolina, the only reason why the contest in this GOP-leaning district is competitive is due to Republican Mark Sanford’s past baggage. And in Massachusetts, one candidate right now is getting the buzz (Republican Gabriel Gomez), while the other hasn’t run a competitive race in a LONG, LONG time (Ed Markey).

*** Does Sanford’s GOP base show up tomorrow? Speaking of tomorrow’s special election in South Carolina, the Washington Post’s Cillizza sees Mark Sanford as the candidate with the momentum. “In conversations with Democratic and Republican strategists closely following the special election set for Tuesday in South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District, the consensus is that the former governor, not businesswoman (and sister of Stephen Colbert) Elizabeth Colbert Busch, is the candidate gaining momentum in the race’s final 48 hours.” The question we have is whether base Republicans show up for Sanford. That’s going to be the difference between him winning and losing.

*** King passes on IA SEN race: On Friday, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) became the latest Republican to say “no” to running for Iowa’s open Senate seat. “The best tool we have now is the majority in the U.S. House which functions mostly to keep the Leftist genie in the bottle. I cannot, in good conscience, turn my back on the destiny decisions of Congress today in order to direct all my efforts to a Senate race for next year, while hoping to gain the leverage to put the genie back in the bottle in 2015,” he said in a statement. And that raises the question: Just who will Republicans get to run in a contest that’s VERY IMPORTANT to their chances of winning a Senate majority in 2014?

*** Ten House races to watch for ’14: Finally, don’t miss Jessica Taylor’s very early look at the 10-top House seats likely to flip in 2014.

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.

Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

Even before departing for his trip to Mexico and Costa Rica this week, President Barack Obama began hammering home a consistent message to his U.S. audiences: When you hear “Mexico,” don’t think only about immigration and trans-border drug trafficking.

Think instead of a fast-growing economic partner and a neighbor that complements the older, better educated, more affluent U.S. population with a younger, cheaper, and nearby workforce (which already has familial and investment ties to the United States).

In a speech to a crowd made up largely of students in Mexico City Friday, Obama declared, "We are two equal partners, two sovereign nations that must work together in mutual interest and mutual respect.  And if we do that, both Mexico and the United States will prosper."

It's the same message of cooperation Obama delivered to the rest of the region when he traveled from Mexico to Costa Rica Friday evening where he met with a group of leaders from other Central American nations.  The intent was clear -- the U.S. and its neighbors to the South have more to gain by focusing on working together than the problems which drive them apart.  

But the clearest example was the nation that shares the most high-profile border with the U.S.   

Although the Mexican economy has grown at a faster pace than that of United States since the financial crisis of 2009, Mexico’s per capita gross domestic product is still about three times smaller than that of the United States.

It’s a poorer country, and a younger one: People aged 65-and-over account for only about six percent of Mexico’s population compared to 13 percent of the U.S. population.

A lot of recent focus has been on the the illegal trafficking of drugs, guns and migrants to and from Mexico. But in the face of this, U.S.-Mexico trade in legitimate goods and services is booming. Bilateral trade exceeds $500 billion a year and Mexico is the second largest market for United States exports.

A report issued this week by the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington said that U.S.-Mexico trade is growing faster than U.S. trade with China. In fact, it's growing faster than it did in the boom following the creation of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994.

As Obama made a point of noting in his speech on Friday, “We sell more of our exports to Mexico than we do to Brazil, Russia, India and China-combined.”

But the Wilson Center report also noted that “the United States and Mexico do not only trade finished products; they build them together. Indeed, roughly 40 percent of all content in Mexican exports to the United States originates in the United States.”

In his speech Obama lamented the fact that attitudes on both sides of the border “sometimes are trapped in old stereotypes. Some Americans only see the Mexico depicted in sensational headlines of violence and border crossings. And let’s admit it, some Mexicans think that America disrespects Mexico, or think that America is trying to impose itself on Mexican sovereignty, or wants to wall ourselves off.”

The implied message to his Mexican audiences -- and to Americans back home who are concerned about illegal immigration -- was that as Mexico becomes more prosperous and, as President Enrique Pena Nieto's economic reforms open the country to more U.S. investment, there will be more job opportunities for Mexicans in Mexico, and less of an incentive to go to the United States to seek work.

“I see a Mexico that is creating new prosperity, trading with the world, becoming a manufacturing powerhouse, from Tijuana and Monterrey to Guadalajara and across the central highlands, a global leader in automobiles and appliances and electronics,” Obama told the Mexican students.

Obama quoted an anonymous man in the Mexican city of Querétaro who, he said, “spoke for an increasing number of Mexicans. ‘There's no reason to go abroad in search of a better life. There are good opportunities here.’”

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

President Barack Obama delivers a speech at the Anthropology Museum during his visit to Mexico City May 3, 2013.

Obama couldn’t help but mention in his speech Friday the awkward topic of U.S. demand for cocaine and other illegal drugs that come from and transit through Mexico. And he acknowledged the return flow of firearms made in the United States to Mexico and Central America.

As the Wilson Center report explained, the illegal trafficking makes the legitimate commerce all the more difficult.

“Recent U.S. National Drug Threat Assessments have suggested that most hard drugs -- like cocaine, methamphetamines and heroin -- are more likely to be smuggled through ports of entry (from Mexico to the United States) rather than around them,” the report said. Policymakers need to figure out how to “simultaneously strengthen security and efficiency at the ports of entry.”

Of course, Obama’s trip also came at a pivotal moment in U.S. domestic politics. Congress is on the brink of debating legislation to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws -- and perhaps to transform millions of Mexicans, Costa Ricans and other Spanish-speaking people now living illegally in the United States into American citizens and potential voters.

At a briefing this week, Carl Meacham, director of the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, called Obama’s trip  “intermestic” -- a trip that is “international and domestic at the same time. It offers him an opportunity to be able to send a message in Latin America that that relationship’s important, with the Mexicans and Central Americans in particular, but also benefit from the fact that there are so many immigrants that come from these countries in the U.S.”

Related:

Read more from NBC News about Mexico

Read more from NBC News about immigration into the US

This story was originally published on Sat May 4, 2013 4:35 AM EDT

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

U.S. President Barack Obama (L) shakes hands with his Mexican counterpart Enrique Pena Nieto after a joint news conference at the National Palace in Mexico City May 2, 2013.

President Barack Obama warned lawmakers against erecting unnecessarily high benchmarks for a pending overhaul of immigration laws, suggesting they would excuse inaction by Congress.

The president, following a meeting with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, said that he remained “optimistic” that Congress could produce a comprehensive immigration reform law this year – an issue of particular importance to millions of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans residing in the United States.

But, responding to Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio’s suggestion that the bipartisan immigration law he helped produce might need even stronger provisions on border security in order to win the necessary votes for passage, Obama warned members of Congress.

“Frankly, we put enormous resources into border security.  There are areas where, frankly, there is more work to be done,” Obama said. “But what I’m not going to do is go along with something where we’re looking for an excuse not to do it.”

In an interview on Wednesday with conservative talker Sean Hannity, Rubio, a member of the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” that authored a new immigration law, said the aspects in the law dealing with border security might need more work.

“The part we still have to do some work on is this border stuff,” Rubio said. “And as I said yesterday … this bill will not pass the House and quite frankly I think will struggle to pass the Senate if it doesn’t deal with that issue.”

Conservatives have demanded stronger border provisions as part of a broad immigration reform deal in exchange for creating a pathway to citizenship for those currently residing in the United States without any documentation.

Peña Nieto, for his part, said that the Mexican government “understands that this is a domestic affair for the U.S.” and wished its northern neighbor the best of luck in its reform efforts.

This story was originally published on Thu May 2, 2013 6:26 PM EDT

President Barack Obama on Thursday begins a whirlwind trip to Latin America, where a high-profile meeting with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto involving immigration, drug violence and trade tops the agenda.

Obama will travel to America’s southern neighbor amid a changing relationship with Mexico, fueled in part by Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) member Peña Nieto’s election to Mexican presidency following 12 years of conservative governance. Already, Peña Nieto has signaled his interest in revisiting an aspect of Mexico’s relationship with the U.S. government, namely the collaboration in combating violent drug traffickers in Mexico.

"I think that in my first conversation with [Peña Nieto], he indicated to me that he very much continues to be concerned about how we can work together to deal with transnational drug cartels," Obama said at a press conference Tuesday at the White House. "We’ve made great strides in the coordination and cooperation between our two governments over the last several years. But my suspicion is is that things can be improved."

Obama’s trip to Mexico on Thursday – and later, to Costa Rica, where the president will meet with various Central American leaders – is his first to Latin America since winning re-election. And even in the months since securing a second term, the political landscape in the region has shifted dramatically.

In addition to Peña Nieto’s ascension in Mexico, the Venezuelan government has undergone significant changes following the death of Hugo Chavez in March. And the Cuban regime, led by Raul and Fidel Castro, is on as precarious footing as ever.

But the meeting with Mexico, though brief, is sure to attract the most attention of Obama’s trip.

Peña Nieto’s government has suggested it may move away from aggressive prosecution of its battle against drug cartels, which have wracked the country with violence. His reformist agenda leaves open the question as to how – and whether – the U.S. and Mexico will continue to pool resources in fighting drug lords.

But the economic relationship between the United States and Mexico will also be a central element of Obama’s trip. Mexico sits near the top of the list of the United States’ largest trading partner, a relationship that was facilitated by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the 20-year-old trade arrangement between Mexico, the U.S. and Canada.

“We spend so much time on security issues between the United States and Mexico that sometimes I think we forget this is a massive trading partner, responsible for huge amounts of commerce and huge numbers of jobs on both sides of the border,” Obama said Tuesday.

Ronaldo Schemidt / AFP - Getty Images

Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto delivers a speech in Mexico City on March 5.

The two leaders’ meeting also comes against the backdrop of the politically thorny battle over immigration reform in the United States. Both legal and illegal immigration from Mexico and other Latin American countries has refashioned the political demography of many southwestern states, prompting Obama to vow to achieve comprehensive immigration reform this year.

In a late November visit to the White House, Peña Nieto voiced support for Obama’s goal of passing an immigration reform law that provides undocumented immigrants currently residing in the United States a pathway to full citizenship. Perhaps as significantly, the immigration reform proposal before the Senate would also establish a temporary and seasonal-worker program for laborers in Mexico and other Latin American nations. At the same time, a proposed border fence between the U.S. and Mexico threatens to inflame aspects of the relationship between the two countries.

"We do have to tell you that we fully support your proposal, sir, for this migration reform," Pena Nieto told Obama during that visit. "We do want to tell you that we want to contribute. We really want to participate with you."

This story was originally published on Thu May 2, 2013 4:09 AM EDT

President Barack Obama – who began his presidency by signing an executive order requiring the closing of the terrorist detention center at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba – pledged Tuesday to renew his efforts to close the facility, where 100 of the 166 detainees are now involved in a weeks-long hunger strike.

“I don't want these individuals to die,” Obama said. “Obviously the Pentagon is trying to manage the situation as best as they can. But I think all of us should reflect on why exactly are we doing this. Why are we doing this?” 

If the detention center were ever closed, the prisoners now held there could be released to their countries of origin – if the governments of those countries were willing to repatriate them – or to a third country if that nation were willing to accept them. A third option, if Congress were to agree, would be to send them to maximum-security prison in the Unites States.

But Congress largely shuts off those options in a defense spending bill that Obama signed on Jan. 2.

The law sets a very high bar for any detainee transfer to another country – reflecting the concern among many members of Congress that freed detainees could mount terrorist attacks on the United States or on American interests abroad.

It’s been clear for years that many members of the president’s party support his desire to close Guantanamo.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said Tuesday after Obama’s press conference, “I’m glad the president has renewed his call for Congress to allow the closing of the prison at Guantanamo so that we can detain, try and sentence these detainees here or return them to their home countries. It should have been done a long time ago. Keeping Guantanamo open is not in our national interest, as David Petraeus and others have told us. Unfortunately, for several years a majority in Congress has prevented the president from acting.”

Although the curbs on his power to release or transfer detainees expires at the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, it seems likely that Congress will again – as it has for the last several years – put restrictions on Obama’s power to release or move any of the Guantanamo detainees.

“I continue to believe that we've got to close Guantanamo,” the president told reporters at his press conference. He then presented the arguments he sees against keeping the facility open.

“It is expensive. It is inefficient. It hurts us, in terms of our international standing,” he said. “It lessens cooperation with our allies on counter-terrorism efforts. It is a recruitment tool for extremists.”

He pointed to other methods, saying, “we've got a whole bunch of individuals who have been tried who are currently in maximum security prisons around the country. Nothing's happened to them. Justice has been served. It's been done in a way that's consistent with our Constitution; consistent with due process.”

He vowed to “re-engage with Congress to try to make the case that this is not something that's in the best interest of the American people.”

He implied that at least some of those held at Guantanamo could safely be held at prisons in the United States, mentioning would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-American who is a naturalized U.S. citizen, as an example of a terrorist who is being held in a federal prison.

Unlike Shahzad, those at Guantanamo are not U.S. citizens.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the defense authorization act that Obama signed into law in January puts the following restrictions on him:

• It prohibits Defense Department money in the current fiscal year from being used to construct or modify prisons in the United States or U.S. territories in order to house detainees transferred from Guantanamo.
• It prohibits funds from being used to transfer or release within the United States or U.S. territories the Sept. 11, 2001 attack planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other detainee who isn’t a U.S. citizen and was held on or after Jan. 20, 2009, at Guantanamo.
• It bars the Obama administration from moving anyone detained at Guantanamo to the detainee’s country of origin, or to any other foreign country, unless Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel certifies to Congress that the country to which the individual is about to be transferred isn’t a designated state sponsor of terrorism. Hagel would also need to certify that the country has agreed to take steps to ensure that the detainees can’t take actions that threaten the United States, its citizens or its allies at any point in the future.
• It prohibits any detainee transfer to another country if there is a confirmed case that any individual previously detained at Guantanamo and then transferred to a foreign country subsequently engaged in a terrorist activity.

Of the 166 detainees at Guantanamo, 86 have been conditionally cleared for transfer or release, but they remain in detention because the government of the host nation can’t give the United States the necessary security guarantees or that nation isn’t willing to take the detainee. 

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, R-Calif., said in a statement, “Congress has not been idle on detention issues. For the past two years, our Committee has worked with our Senate counterparts to ensure that the certifications necessary to transfer detainees overseas are reasonable. The Administration has never certified a single transfer. Contrary to what President Obama has implied, here are no restrictions on releasing detainees who have won their habeas cases in federal court."

NBC’s Courtney Kube contributed to this story.

Related stories:

• Obama: Guantanamo 'needs to be closed'

This story was originally published on Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:35 PM EDT

President Barack Obama – again – vowed Tuesday to follow through with a 2008 campaign pledge to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Amid a hunger strike being waged by terror suspects at the prison to protest their detainment and living conditions, Obama reiterated his belief that the prison should be shuttered.

"I continue to believe that we've got to close Guantanamo," Obama said at the White House. "I think it is critical for us to understand that Guantanamo is not necessary to keep America safe. It is expensive. It is inefficient. It hurts us, in terms of our international standing. It lessens cooperation with our allies on counter-terrorism efforts. It is a recruitment tool for extremists. It needs to be closed." 

The president’s sentiment is familiar to anyone who’s followed his statements on foreign policy for the last eight years. He campaigned for the Democratic nomination in part on closing the prison. He signed an order seeking to close the facility shortly after being inaugurated for his first term in office. Obama also repeatedly voiced support for closing the prison during his time in office. He has also supported trying most terror suspects in U.S. civilian court.

The issue reared itself again less than two months ago, when the government brought the son of Osama bin Laden to New York City to stand trial on terror charges.

But, as the president noted Tuesday, lawmakers – mostly Republicans – have worked to block any effort to close Guantanamo. And the president said Tuesday he would redouble his efforts to achieve this goal.

“I'm going to, as I said before, examine every option that we have administratively to try to deal with this issue, but ultimately we're also going to need some help from Congress,” he said.

Related Stories:

• Obama cautions against rush to action in Syria
• Obama reiterates chemical weapons would be 'game-changer'

This story was originally published on Tue Apr 30, 2013 1:04 PM EDT

A bipartisan slate of political leaders pondered what role the United States should play in Syria following indications that its besieged leader used chemical weapons in that country's civil war. 

Following the Obama administration's declaration this week that Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad had used chemical weapons against rebels looking to unseat him, lawmakers pondered how to best respond. President Barack Obama had previously called the use of such weapons a "red line" that would prompt a response from the United States.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, urged the president to begin identifying a strategy to secure Syria's stockpiles of chemical weapons should the government fall.

"Be prepared with an international force to go in and secure these stocks of chemical, and perhaps biological, weapons," McCain said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

But, mindful of Americans' war-weariness following nearly a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, McCain cautioned against sending U.S. troops to Syria, warning that it could prompt resentment from Syrians. 

The Arizona senator said in the meanwhile that Obama could establish a no-fly zone in Syria without endangering any U.S. troops. And McCain also called for Obama to further arm rebel groups. 

The White House has been more cautious, explaining this week in briefings to lawmakers that evidence of the use of chemical weapons in Syria is still preliminary, and the government would take more time to gather intelligence. 

"To use potential weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations crosses another line with respect to international norms and international law.  And that is going to be a game changer," Obama said Friday before meeting with King Abdullah II of Jordan.

"We have to act prudently. We have to make these assessments deliberately," the president added. "But I think all of us, not just in the United States but around the world, recognize how we cannot stand by and permit the systematic use of weapons like chemical weapons on civilian populations."

The administration's caution reflects the difficulty in navigating the situation in Syria. A key concern involves identifying which rebels to arm in Syria, and whether there is a risk of those arms being turned back agains the U.S. in the future. 

"My concern is that al Qaeda has more influence among the rebels than it should," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., a key lawmaker who serves on intelligence and homeland security panels. 

But even beyond the national security implications, some lawmakers have said there might be humanitarian justifications to act in Syria.

"I think the United States could play a bigger role in dealing with the humanitarian crisis," said Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., one of two Muslim members of Congress. "I don't think the world's greatest super power, the United States, can stand by and do nothing."

This story was originally published on Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:33 AM EDT

Re-examining Bush… But will history -- especially when it comes to Iraq -- truly allow him to get a second look?... 2016 could give us an early answer… What the Bush library/museum displays (and what it doesn’t)… A stroll down Memory Lane: Looking back at Bush’s presidency… A handful of conservatives bring up the charge that Obama hasn’t kept the country safe… Obama fundraises last night -- before attending today’s library dedication and memorial for those in West, TX… Another example of the difficult time Boehner/Cantor have had in herding cats… And Congress to exempt itself from Obamacare?

Kevork Djansezian / Getty Images

Former President George W. Bush participates in a signing ceremony inside the Freedom Hall for the joint use agreement between the National Archive and the George W. Bush Presidential Center on the campus of Southern Methodist University on April 24, 2013 in Dallas, Texas.

*** Re-examining Bush: Ex-presidents almost always get a second look. Long after the Vietnam War forced him to abandon his presidential re-election bid in 1968, Lyndon Johnson is now lionized (most recently by the New York Times) for his ability to twist arms. After the Cold War's end and David McCullough's popular book, Americans view Harry Truman more favorably than when he left office. And Bill Clinton -- who was dogged by impeachment, the Marc Rich pardon, and his contribution to his wife's defeat in 2008 -- is now enjoying his highest poll numbers in a very long time. So naturally, with the George W. Bush library being dedicated today, the re-examination of the nation's 43rd president is well underway. The Washington Post recently wrote about Bush’s rebounding poll numbers, though a recent NBC/WSJ poll found his fav/unfav numbers (35%-44%) relatively unchanged since 2010. And former Bush ’04 campaign manager Ken Mehlman argued that Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” and push for immigration reform is a GOP roadmap for better success with minority voters. But here’s the question to consider: Will history -- especially when it comes to Iraq -- truly allow Bush to get a second look?

*** Can he escape his Iraq legacy? To be sure, Bush supporters tout his accomplishments, such as the No Child Left Behind education law, the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, the Africa/AIDS work, and the Roberts-Alito appointments to the Supreme Court. Other events -- like 9/11, Hurricane Katrina and the 2008 financial crisis -- would have challenged any president. But it's the Iraq War that Bush will find hard to escape. After all, it was a war of choice that resulted in the deaths of thousands of U.S. soldiers, the deaths of many more civilians, the destabilization of the Middle East (think Iran would be the threat it is today without the Iraq War?), and the election of Barack Obama in 2008 (who essentially campaigned against Bush in his two winning elections). More importantly, the war's primary justification -- Iraq having weapons of mass destruction -- turned out to be incorrect. “People will make their own judgment,” Bush told NBC’s Matt Lauer this morning on “TODAY,” adding: “Removing Saddam Hussein was the right decision.” However, a Jan. 2013 NBC/WSJ poll found 59% of the public saying the Iraq War wasn’t worth it.

*** 2016 could hint at an answer: Perhaps a key test if history looks more kindly on Bush's presidency is the 2016 election. History's failed presidencies have tended to result in the opposition party going on a run in future presidential contests – think of the six Republican victories after James Buchanan, the five Democratic wins after Herbert Hoover, and the three-straight Republican victories after Jimmy Carter. So who wins in 2016 (Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, the GOP nominee?) could tell you something about Bush's legacy, at least from American voters. Another 2016 story to watch: Does brother Jeb Bush run? "If Jeb's last name was Brown instead of Bush, he'd probably be the front-runner for the Republican nomination," Haley Barbour told recently Politico. And does the ultimate GOP nominee run on something like Bush's "compassionate conservative" platform, or does the nominee run away from Bush as Romney did (remember, Bush was a no-show at the GOP convention, and Romney rarely invoked him on the campaign trail)? Speaking of 2016, don’t miss former First Lady Barbara Bush saying on “TODAY” she DOESN’T want her son Jeb running. “We’ve had enough Bushes.” Leave it to Mama Bush -- the straightest of straight talkers -- to make the unpredictable news of the morning here. She’s legendary inside the family for telling it like it is and not hiding her true feelings well in public. And, well, she did it again. The official line from George W. and Laura about Jeb is “run” -- they have not even hesitated when asked.

*** What the museum displays (and what it doesn’t): What’s striking for those of us who have been able to tour the new Bush library and museum is that there is no dedicated section on Iraq; instead, the war is discussed as part of the “global war on terror.” What’s more, former Vice President Dick Cheney and top political strategist Karl Rove have almost no presence in the library, despite being two of the most consequential actors in the Bush administration. What is clear is the presence of former First Lady Laura Bush, however. This isn’t just the George W. Bush Library; it’s the George W. and Laura Bush Library. It’s folks Laura respected from the Bush team who are featured in the library -- from Condi Rice to folks like Andy Card and Josh Bolten.

*** A stroll down Memory Lane: Per NBC’s Sarah Blackwill, here are some of the more memorable quotes from Bush’s eight years in the White House:
Jan. 20, 2001: “America, at its best, is compassionate. In the quiet of American conscience, we know that deep, persistent poverty is unworthy of our nation's promise.” (First inaugural address)
Sept. 14, 2001: I can hear you! I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who ... knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon. (Bush at WTC site)
Jan. 28, 2003: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” (2003 State of the Union)
May 1, 2003: Officers and sailors of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, My fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (“Mission Accomplished” event)
Nov. 3, 2004: “Laura and I wish Senator Kerry and Teresa and their whole family all our best wishes. America has spoken, and I'm humbled by the trust and the confidence of my fellow citizens.” (Election Night 2004)
Nov. 4, 2004: “Let me put it to you this way. I earned capital in the campaign, political capital. And now I intend to spend it.” (Press conference after re-election victory)
Jan. 20, 2005: “There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.” (Second inaugural address.)
Sept. 2, 2005: “Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job.'' (After Hurricane Katrina)
Jan. 10, 2007: “So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq.” (Announcing Iraq surge)

*** A handful of conservatives bring up the charge that Obama hasn’t kept the country safe: Given the Bush library dedication and given the news out of Boston last week, maybe we should have braced ourselves for a handful of conservatives arguing that the Obama administration is “failing” to keep the country safe from terrorists. But do leaders of the GOP really want to have this argument? This could get ugly -- fast. Here was freshman Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR) on the House floor yesterday: “In barely four years in office, five jihadists have reached their targets in the United States under Barack Obama: the Boston Marathon bomber, the underwear bomber, the Times Square Bomber, the Fort Hood shooter, and in my own state—the Little Rock recruiting office shooter. In the over seven years after 9/11 under George W. Bush, how many terrorists reached their target in the United States? Zero!” Conservative writer Jennifer Rubin has made a similar point. “Unlike Obama’s tenure, there was no successful attack on the homeland after 9/11.” (Note the words “after 9/11” from both Cotton and Rubin.) Interestingly, when Lauer asked Bush today whether the country was safer, the former president answered in the affirmative, but he added, “People on the homeland are aware that we are not completely secure.” Until “hopelessness” has been eradicated, Bush said, “we’ll still be vulnerable.” The most serious of security folks have said for years (since 9/11) that the hardest attack to prevent is the lone wolf. Don’t be surprised if some of the more senior GOP folks denounce this line of attack on Obama.

*** Obama fundraises … then hits the Bush library and service for those killed in West, TX: Meanwhile, are we the only ones surprised that Obama decided to hit a fundraiser in Dallas last night before attending today’s Bush library dedication (where he speaks at 11:00 am ET) and then the memorial service for those who died in West, TX (at 3:15 pm ET)? It’s an odd tone.

*** Another example of the difficult time Boehner/Cantor have had in herding cats in the House: “Republican leaders in the House of Representatives on Wednesday withdrew a bill that would change the Obama administration's healthcare law amid conservative concerns that the legislation was replacing one big government program with another,” Reuters writes. “The House cleared the way to debate the bill, which was designed to help Americans with pre-existing medical conditions while preventing the administration from using an alternate source of funding to implement its healthcare law. But the ‘Helping Sick Americans Now’ bill was pulled from the schedule before members could cast their votes, suggesting that Republican leaders did not have enough support from their own members. Democrats called the bill a political ploy by the Republicans.”

*** Congress to exempt itself from Obamacare? And finally, if this Politico story is true, we’d imagine Congress' approval ratings will sink even lower (if that's possible). “Congressional leaders in both parties are engaged in high-level, confidential talks about exempting lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides from the insurance exchanges they are mandated to join as part of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, sources in both parties said.” NBC’s Kasie Hunt says that this all comes down to whether Capitol Hill’s employer (i.e., the federal government) can subsidize health-care costs for their employees like most businesses do. All of this might be irrelevant because the Office of Personnel Management still hasn't made a key ruling about whether the government is allowed to continue providing subsidies to federal employees. If they rule that it's allowed, the talks aren't necessary.

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

Brendan Smialowski / AFP - Getty Images

Senator Lindsey Graham speaks during a press conference on Capitol Hill March 7, 2013.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday that if a military conflict breaks out with North Korea, “the North loses and the South wins with our help.”

Graham said, “I could see a major war happening if the North Koreans overplay their hand this time because the public in South Korea, the United States, and, I think, the whole region is fed up with this guy,” Graham said.

By “this guy,” Graham meant new North Korean leader Kim Jung Un who has been making bellicose threats against the United States in recent days.

Graham said “my biggest fear” is a conflict sparked by the North Korea regime and its misunderstanding of the new thinking in South Korea. The South Koreans, he said, are “not going to put up with this anymore. If there were a South Korean naval vessel sunk this year, any time soon, or shelling of a South Korean island by North Korea, I think the new president of South Korea would be compelled to act. I think the North Koreans are overplaying their hand.”

Graham praised the Obama administration’s handling of the increased tensions with North Korea. “I’m glad we’re not doing the ballistic missile test,” he said, referring to a decision by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to delay an intercontinental ballistic missile test at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California because of the tensions with North Korea. “I’m glad we had the B-2s in the (Korean) theater where they could see them…”

The South Carolina Republican said the Chinese government fears a reunification of North and South Korea. “They don’t want a democratic Korea next to China, so they’re propping up this crazy (North Korean) regime – and they can determine the fate of North Korea better than anybody on the planet,” he said.

Graham also said that the governments of Japan and South Korea haven’t moved to develop their own nuclear weapons capability because “they trust us. As long as South Korea and Japan trust us to be in the fight, they won’t go down the nuclear road. It’s important that they always believe we have their back, it’s important that North Korea knows what happens if they engage anybody in the region associated with us – including with our own troops. They (the North Koreans) lose.” 

Recommended: 'Shared struggle': Gay rights activists jump into immigration fray

Graham, who has just returned from a trip to the Middle East, also commented on the uprising in Syria against the Assad regime.

“The worst is yet to come on Syria if we don’t fix this soon,” he warned. He added that before the United States provides arms to the anti-Assad rebels, it should get a commitment from them to allow an international force to round up and destroy the chemical weapons that Assad’s regime has – “enough weapons to kill millions of people.”

Any new Syrian regime that replaces Bashar al-Assad must, he said, renounce owning chemical weapons.

But the South Carolina Republican warned that “radical elements” in the anti-Assad coalition “are growing by the day.” And it could be “a nightmare in the making” if Assad’s chemical weapons arsenal falls into the hands of radical Islamists in Syria.