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

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

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 – 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

When the phone rang at the bar of a Brussels restaurant in 1991, it was extraordinary -- not just because the president of the United States was on the other end, but because the message being delivered by George H.W. Bush flouted more than 200 years of tradition when it comes to how Washington doles out ambassadorships.

In short, not all ambassadorships are created equal. 

Raymond Seitz was out to dinner when he was summoned to the bar for that unexpected telephone call more than 20 years ago. It was the White House, telling him to hold for the president of the United States.

What most caught Seitz off guard was what the commander-in-chief said. He told Seitz that he was making him ambassador to the Court of St. James’s.

"You mean to the one in London?" Seitz responded, incredulous. He just wanted to make sure.

Seitz could be excused for what he called his "utter disbelief." After all, in the more than 200-year history of America sending envoys to Britain, no career diplomat had ever been picked for the top post. 

It's been 22 years since that phone call -- and it's the last time a career diplomat was selected as the U.S. ambassador to the United Kingdom.

"I think they do it once every 200 years," Seitz, 72, joked in an interview from his home in a rural New Hampshire town, where he's now retired.

In the next few weeks, President Barack Obama will once again name an ambassador to London, as well as to a raft of other countries. High-profile political appointees will again likely top the list, with rumors swirling about appointments for Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of the late President John F. Kennedy, and even Vogue magazine editor Anna Wintour, a top Obama fundraiser.

The U.S. sends career diplomats generally to places where it needs them and cannot take chances. Former Republican Utah Gov. John Huntsman, who Obama tapped to represent the country in China during his first term, is an example of a heavyweight political appointee who worked out and was not a campaign bundler. Other hotspots -- Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt -- are equally sensitive and demanding of more experienced diplomatic hands.

But with the rise and prevalence of money in U.S. politics, ambassadorships to places friendly to America have become increasingly reserved as plum posts for big donors. The British, on the other hand, appoint the best-of-the-best.

While diplomatic relations with every nation are important, the U.S. has no better friend than the U.K.

Despite the “special relationship” Winston Churchill famously described in 1946, the process by which the two countries pick ambassadors has been lopsided.

And it’s been this way for decades. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, for example, appointed Joseph Kennedy, who had helped FDR raise money. President Obama is no different. The man who stepped down from the London post last week is Louis Susman, a Chicago investment banker who helped raise more than $500,000 for Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.

Jacquelyn Martin / AP

Secretary of State John Kerry speaks alongside U.S. Ambassador Louis Susman, second from left, during a visit to the U.S. Embassy, London, Monday, Feb. 25, 2013.

In the next few weeks, Obama is expected to announce his replacement for Susman. Most would be surprised if it's anyone other than a political appointee. It’s expected to be Matthew Barzun, who was the finance chairman of Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign that raised almost three-quarters of $1 billion.

“In a way, it’s disappointing,” Seitz said. “I understand the system. I know how it works. I know how these posts are reserved for people with political connections one way or another. More often than not, it’s not the most successful way to go about representing the country … I think we would probably have a more coherent foreign policy if we had our senior posts filled by professionals.”

President Obama made no secret during his 2008 presidential transition of his intention to name at least some political appointees. Approximately 30 percent of his appointments have been political. The other 70 percent have been filled by career diplomats. That is on pace with his predecessors over the last 50 years, according to statistics maintained by the American Foreign Service Association.

Those political appointments are generally awarded to staunch American allies with direct dials to the president, where skilled, experienced Foreign Service officers back up the ambassadors, and the most important decisions are not made at the ambassadorial level.

“In filling these posts, the administration looks for the most qualified candidates who represent Americans from all walks of life,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz said. “We have received interest and have recruited talented people from all across the country and all kinds of professional backgrounds. Being a donor does not get you a job in this administration, nor does it preclude you from getting one.” 

Not every political appointee is unqualified or doesn’t do a good job. President Bill Clinton, for example, replaced Seitz in London with a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Susman was seen as curious and non-problematic, unlike, for example, Cynthia Stroum, another Obama 2008 fundraiser awarded with the ambassadorship to Luxembourg. She resigned in 2011, a month before a scathing State Department report , eviscerating her management, was released.

‘A joke in London’
Though they don’t always say so to Washington, allies in the diplomatic corps question the efficacy of the most powerful country in the world sending people with such blatant political ties and a dearth of diplomatic experience. 

“It often is sort of a joke in London diplomatic circles,” said Erik Goldstein, a professor at Boston University who specializes in British foreign policy and who lived in England when Seitz was ambassador. 

Michael Hopkins, senior lecturer on American Foreign Policy at the University of Liverpool and editor of “The Washington Embassy: British Ambassadors to Washington, 1939-1977,” added wryly, “Most Foreign Office officials, if they were to say so, would regard it as ‘disappointing’ or ‘perhaps not the best choice of envoy.’”

Seitz may have been succeeded by a Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, but he was preceded by Henry Catto, a Texan who hung the Lone Star flag at the embassy and placed a four-foot-tall wooden steer on the front lawn.

Former President George W. Bush picked Robert Tuttle, a car dealer from California, who helped raise more than $100,000 for his campaign.

/

Anna Wintour attends the London Fashion Week Autumn/Winter 2012 reception at 10 Downing Street in February 2012 in London.

In December, Wintour, the reported inspiration for titular character in “The Devil Wears Prada,” was rumored to be in the running for -- or at least interested in – the London post. Wintour has been a major supporter of President Obama, helping him raise $500,000 for his 2012 campaign. That possibility was lampooned in the British press with one report deriding her as an “aloof and arrogant ice maiden.”

“They just shake their heads,” Goldstein said. “But they understand the American system and know this is a political reward. This is the price of doing business with the U.S., and you have to deal with the No. 2.”

The No. 2 in the embassies is the deputy chief of mission, a more seasoned career diplomat. It was a position Seitz held in London in the 1980s.

“The deputy chief of mission does most of the work -- they’re almost ambassadorial rank,” Goldstein added. “In effect, what the ambassador of the United States has become is not really a figurehead, but a public face of the embassy … The system has found a way to cope with it, but, in my opinion, it’s not ideal.”

Best of the best
The British send diplomats to Washington at the tops of their fields. The current ambassador, Sir Peter Westmacott, for example, has been a diplomat for 40 years, from Tehran to Ankara to Paris.  

“You can count on one hand the number of political appointees,” Hopkins said. But “the overwhelming bulk of them are Foreign Office officials.”

Goldstein added, “The ambassador to Washington is always the top.”

Westmacott, however, defended the U.S.

“It’s a very different system,” the ambassador said. “It’s easy to say that the U.S. system appoints ambassadors using criteria not related to merit or suitability.” But having seen it up close, Westmacott said, “Often, it works very well.”

Even though it might often be donors selected, he added that they generally know the countries well or speak the language. Plus, there’s the intangible of having the president’s ear.

“There’s real value in someone having political clout,” Westmacott said. “That’s not always the case with professional diplomats.” It doesn’t always work out seamlessly, “which is why it’s important to have an excellent deputy which often happens in the U.S.,” he added. “Both have their merits.”

Since World War II, there have been two journalists appointed by the U.K. as well as one other notable exception -- David Ormsby-Gore. Ormsby-Gore had strong political family ties in the U.K. and was appointed to Washington in 1961, ironically, because he was a longtime friend of the young, new American president, John F. Kennedy.

Why the shift
America used to send statesmen and high-ranking officials to Britain. Future presidents John Adams, John Quincy Adams, James Monroe, Martin Van Buren, and James Buchanan all served in London.

Even the first envoy to be assigned the rank of ambassador for America -- exactly 120 years ago -- was a former secretary of state, Thomas Bayard. But things have changed.

“Since World War II, it’s been used as reward for big donors,” Goldstein said. “It tends to be more political appointees, donor appointees. It’s escalating.”

Recommended: Budget, immigration, gun control: Congress returns to debate cornerstones of Obama agenda

Scholars point to three reasons for the change, including money in U.S. politics and the difference in the two countries’ political systems; technology that’s made electronic messages, phone calls and transatlantic flights easier; and the power shift from the British Empire to the American superpower after World War II.

Money has become ubiquitous in American politics. With outside groups factored in, more than $2 billion was spent on the presidential election between President Obama and Mitt Romney, the most ever. Romney, like Obama in 2008, actively campaigned for nearly a year and a half.

In Britain, campaigning is far more truncated, lasting only about a month.

Also, American presidents also have a more direct role in picking their ambassadors. In the U.K., ambassadors’ years of service often do not coincide with the election of prime ministers.

But above all, it’s about power. America’s involvement in World War II, and the pivotal role it played, elevated its status on the world stage.

“London was the place to be,” Hopkins said. “Not anymore. Washington was the heart of power after World War II. Britain needed a good person in Washington after that.”

As for Seitz, he's left NATO meetings in Belgium and phone calls with presidents for Orford, N.H., a town of just over 1,000 people nestled in the Connecticut River Valley on the border of Vermont. But he hasn’t completely shied away from the spotlight.

Seitz is now proudly the non-salaried deputy supervisor of the town dump.

“It is a kind of political appointment,” he said, “but I take my duties seriously.”

Related: 

A make-or-break week on guns

This story was originally published on Mon Apr 8, 2013 6:13 PM EDT

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. 

Obama and Bibi: Another reminder that elections have consequences… That applies to immigration reform, too… Obama set to deliver speech to Israeli people around 11:00 am ET… Biden talks gun regulation to NPR… Congress set to pass CR to avoid government shutdown, while House votes on Ryan budget between 11:45 am and 12:15 pm ET… Introducing our “Senate Madness” contest… Our first match up: Lloyd Bentsen vs. Phil Gramm… And can Bostic beat Sanford in SC-1?

Pool / Getty Images

President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu view a robotic snake used in search and rescue at an Israeli technology exhibition in the Israel Museum on March 21, 2013 in Jerusalem, Israel.

*** Another reminder that elections have consequences: If you’ve been covering politics over the past four years, watching yesterday’s bro-mance between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was striking. After all, these are two men who’ve had a rocky relationship in the past, and Netanyahu not so subtly seemed to support the man running against Obama in last year’s presidential election (Mitt Romney). So what changed? Part of it is diplomacy: Despite their differences, these are two men who lead countries that are allies to each other, and Obama was setting foot on Israeli soil. But there’s another explanation as well: Elections have consequences. Obama won a second term, and Netanyahu (as well as the rest of the Israeli government) will have to deal with him over the next four years. Moreover, Netanyahu recently had his own election, too. And even though he remains prime minister, it was a humbling outcome -- and hugging the American president isn’t a bad way to move forward. As the song lyric goes, “If you can’t be with the one you love, honey, love the one you’re with.”

*** Don’t forget immigration, too: That elections have consequences also explains why Congress -- right now at least -- appears to be on track to passing comprehensive immigration reform. Ask yourself: Would so many Republicans (Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, now Raul Labrador) be rushing to not only embrace a pathway to legal status for illegal immigrants but also citizenship if Obama hadn’t won the 2012 election (and so decisively among Latino voters)? How this country conducts its elections (all the money, all the negativity) probably isn’t ideal. Ditto how we in the media cover them (like the intense focus on the horserace). But elections -- however imperfect they are -- still represent the truest way of bringing about change, or at least laying the groundwork for it.

*** Obama in the Middle East, Day 2: Already today, Obama has held a press availability with Palestinian Authority President Abbas. And at around 11:00 am ET, he delivers a speech to the Israeli people.

*** Biden talks gun regulation: On Wednesday, Vice President Biden spoke with NPR in a lengthy interview on guns, saying that he would continue to work to push an assault-weapons ban through Congress, even though that measure won’t be part of the legislation that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will bring to the floor next month. “My experience, having been the only guy that did this once before, along with Dianne Feinstein and others, is that this doesn’t necessarily happen in one fell swoop,” Biden said, adding: “We are going to continue to push for logical, gun safety regulations. Eventually the will of the people is going to prevail and we’re going to keep at it.” The vice president on the possibility of passing universal background checks: “That would be gigantic. That would be gigantic. Let me put it in perspective. When the Brady legislation passed back in ‘94 and the NRA and a significant portion of the opposition were absolutely opposed to it.”

*** Congress set to avert government shutdown: Remember the possibility -- just a few weeks ago -- that the government could shut down? Well, it appears that has been avoided. The New York Times: The Senate “by a vote of 73-26 passed a spending measure that caps spending for programs within Congress’s annual discretion at $984 billion. The House is expected to pass the measure as soon as Thursday, eliminating any current threat of a government shutdown. The final Senate bill did ease the hit of the automatic cuts known as sequestration somewhat, especially those that could hurt vulnerable Democrats.” Also today, the House is set to vote on the Paul Ryan’s budget proposal between 11:45 am ET and 12:15 pm ET.

*** “Senate Madness”: Pegged to today’s true start of the NCAA basketball tournament, we are launching “Senate Madness” -- our online contest pitting history’s most consequential U.S. senators against one another. To assemble our list of 64-plus senators, we reached out to historians, as well as fellow political observers and analysts. The exercise isn’t based on popularity; rather, it’s based on consequence during their tenure in the Senate. (It’s why ex-senators like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton won’t be on the list, but LBJ will be.) These are the senators who shaped U.S. history, whose names are affixed to important legislation and Senate buildings, and whose influence and legacy live on. Some of these names, too, were on the wrong side of history on major issues facing the country. After all, just as American history is complicated, so too is the history of the U.S. Senate. Note: Current senators aren’t eligible to make our list.

*** Introducing our play-in contest -- Bentsen vs. Gramm: The online contest works just like your NCAA tournament brackets. Over the next few weeks, you get to vote on each match up between individual senators, and the winners advance. Our brackets are divided into different eras: 19th Century Era, 20th Century Era, Modern Day Era (relatively), and Mixed Era. The first match up is our play-in to be the 16th seed in the Modern Day bracket. It pits Lloyd Bentsen against Phil Gramm -- Texas Democrat vs. Texas Republican, Texas Longhorn vs. Texas A&M Aggie. (That Bentsen and Gramm are duking it out for a 16th seed demonstrates the deep bench of senators we’re considering.) The winner moves on to our other match ups beginning next week. So go to First Read on NBCPolitics.com to vote. Get your Senate Madness on… And we’ll unveil our full brackets beginning on Monday. But here’s a tease of our #1 seeds: Daniel Webster (19^th), LBJ (20^th), Ted Kennedy (Modern), and Henry Clay (Mixed).

*** Can Bostic beat Sanford? Yesterday, third-place finisher Larry Grooms conceded to second-placer Curtis Bostic in South Carolina’s special GOP congressional primary (even though the automatic recount will go on), which means that Bostic most likely will be the one to face off against Mark Sanford in the April 2 run-off. South Carolina political reporter Gina Smith has a piece asking whether Bostic (who got just 13% on Tuesday) can beat Sanford (who got 37%). “One political group has conducted a survey saying the former governor will win handily in the April 2 runoff, while one of Bostic’s former opponents believes the councilman has a shot… On Tuesday evening, Bostic said his approach would be to continue reaching out to individuals in their homes, on the phone and in the community to grow his support. ’There’s 60-something percent (of voters) looking for something different (than Sanford), and I hope they like what we have to offer,’ he said.”

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

This story was originally published on Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:18 AM EDT

Republicans have lashed out against the Obama administration’s decision to bring a son-in-law of Osama bin Laden to New York City for trial, a high-profile move that would help the president follow through on one of his earliest campaign pledges.

One of the unmet promises from President Barack Obama’s first term involved closing the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and bringing suspects to the continental United States for trial.

Related: Bin Laden’s son-in-law pleads not guilty to terror charge in New York

Two days after his first inauguration, the president signed an executive order calling for the closure of the military prison. But bipartisan resistance from lawmakers, who feared trials for terror suspects on domestic soil, scuttled efforts to shutter Guantanamo, leaving prisoners and detainees in legal limbo.

Four years later, Guantanamo remains in operation, and military tribunals – 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s trial is ongoing – continue at the naval base in Cuba. But the Obama administration’s decision to arraign a son-in-law of Osama bin Laden, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, in federal court on Friday in New York marked maybe its most high-profile example of working to shift terror prosecutions to civilian courts.

And already, Republicans are mounting stiff resistance to the move.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who on Thursday took to the Senate floor to defend Obama’s prerogatives in waging drone strikes, vowed to fight the administration’s decision to bring Abu Ghaith to New York.

"The American people and their representatives in Congress have been clear that they do not want foreign members of al Qaeda brought to the United States,” he said in a statement. “The Obama administration's decision to try Abu Ghaith in a New York district court clearly contravenes the will of the American people. This decision by the Obama administration will not go unchallenged."

The issue of Guantanamo is one on which Republicans have built a rare political advantage over Obama on an issue of foreign policy. Their dogged opposition to terror trials on U.S. soil has won over a handful of Democrats, thereby stymying the administration’s ability to execute one of the president’s first official orders.

And following Abu Ghaith’s “not guilty” plea this morning to charges of plotting to kill Americans, Republicans have piled on in short order.

“What has not changed since the issuance of the president's executive orders is that terrorists working to attack the United States are enemy combatants, and if captured should be placed in military custody where they can be interrogated,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement. “The decision of the president to import Sulaiman Abu Ghaith into the United States solely for civilian prosecution makes little sense, and reveals, yet again, a stubborn refusal to avoid holding additional terrorists at the secure facility at Guantanamo Bay despite the circumstances.”

Added Republican Rep. Peter King, the New York congressman who’s been vocally critical of terror trials in New York: "While a federal court trial of Abu Ghaith in lower Manhattan would not present the same security issues as a trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, I strongly believe as a matter of policy that military tribunals are the proper venue for enemy combatants. If the Abu Ghaith trial does go forward in federal court it must not be used as a precedent for future enemy combatants who should be tried at Guantanamo."

With Congress out of town, few Democrats have chimed in on the Abu Ghaith decision; he was only extradited on Thursday. Several Democrats, like Manhattan Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., have in the past been vocally supportive of civilian trials in New York.

"I support the government bringing this prosecution in civilian court and expect that the federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York will successfully prosecute Abu Ghaith and put him away for the rest of his life," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic chairwoman of the Senate intelligence panel, said in a statement. She has previously supported trials for terror suspects in the United States. "The bottom line is the federal criminal court system works. Hundreds of international terrorists have been convicted in our federal courts since 9/11 and are locked away in heavily fortified federal prisons."

J. Scott Applewhite / AP

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. speaks with reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, March 7, 2013, as he leaves a GOP policy meeting.

Deputy White House press secretary Josh Earnest, though, used Friday’s briefing with reporters to push back against criticism of the move.

“The intelligence community agrees that the best way to protect our national security interests is to prosecute Abu Ghaith in an Article III court,” Earnest said, later adding: “This is somebody who's going to be held accountable for his crimes and will be done -- and that will be done in accordance with the laws and values of this country, and it will be done so in a pretty efficient way.”

This story was originally published on Fri Mar 8, 2013 4:11 PM EST

The Senate Intelligence Committee voted on Tuesday in favor of John O. Brennan's nomination to become the next director of the CIA, clearing the way for his confirmation before the whole Senate.

The intelligence panel voted 12-3 in a closed-door session to favorably report Brennan, the Homeland Security adviser to President Barack Obama. Tuesday's vote could clear the way for Brennan's confirmation as soon as this week.

The three senators voting against Brennan's nomination in committee, all Republicans, were Sens. Jim Risch (Idaho), Saxby Chambliss (Ga.) and Tom Coburn (Okla.). Chambliss is the committee vice chairman and said he would be explaining his "no" vote on the Senate floor in the coming days.

Brennan faces some measure of rare, bipartisan resistance from Republicans who wish for more information from Obama about the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi and liberals who want more details about Brennan's role in advising covert drone strikes against terrorist targets.

If any of those senators object to moving forward with Brennan's nomination before the whole Senate, it would trigger the same 60-vote threshold -- a de-facto filibuster -- to which now-Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's nomination was subjected.

This story was originally published on Tue Mar 5, 2013 3:40 PM EST