BEIJING -- Christopher Cox Nixon began retracing the steps of his grandfather's historic 1972 visit to China by walking across Tiananmen Square with an entourage that included several former Nixon aides.

"The stark contrast between then and now," marveled Jack Brennan, who had accompanied President Richard Nixon to China as his Marine Corp aide. "The colors, and nobody smiled back then."

As if on cue, a young Chinese woman in a bright dress, big white-rimmed sunglasses and a smile that seemed as broad as the Tiananmen Gate, bounded forward requesting a photograph. Although not with Brennan, but with the young Nixon's glamorous wife, Andrea Catsimatidis, clad in a striking red dress.

Catsimatidis, daughter of supermarket billionaire John Catsimatidis -- a candidate for mayor of New York -- duly obliged, as she would several more times as the group strolled on through the Forbidden City.

It is likely that none of the Chinese fans had a clue who she was -- and they may never have heard of either of the Nixons. But it seemed a cool thing to do, uploading the photo from a smartphone to one of the many social networking sites patronized by young Chinese.

Yes, this country has changed.

Andy Wong / AP

In this combo photo, U.S. President Richard Nixon and his wife Pat Nixon have light moments at a huge stone elephant, left, on Feb. 24, 1972; while at right, Nixon's grandson Christopher Cox and his wife Andrea Catsimatidisat visit the same spot at the Ming Tomb, north of Beijing, on  May 4, 2013.

President Nixon called his historic 1972 visit "the week that changed the world," ending 25 years of a diplomatic freeze between the two countries. The young Nixon’s visit marked the centenary of his grandfather's birth.

"What an incredible change from 40 years ago," said the young Nixon, a 34-year-old investment banker with political ambitions of his own. "Just look at the personal freedoms, not political freedoms, but personal freedoms -- how people dress, how people interact with each other."

The 1972 trip is credited with opening China to the world. It was also an important Cold War play, driving a deeper wedge between China and the Soviet Union. Nixon was fiercely anti-communist, and the term "Nixon going to China" became a catchphrase for an unexpected action by a politician.

"We should never keep a billion of the world's most able and hard-working people in isolation," said his grandson. "I think that he [President Nixon] would have expected to see the Chinese people so prosperous and industrious."

The anniversary trip was designed to stress the positives of both the Nixon administration and the Chinese Communist Party, which gave the group red-carpet treatment as they traveled last week to Beijing, Shanghai and Hangzhou.

One highlight was a banquet at the Great Hall of the People, hosted by State Councilor Yang Jiechi, China's top foreign policy official, and designed to mirror a banquet thrown for President Nixon.

A big screen at the front of the room described the 1972 summit as the "most important event in the history of international diplomacy in the 20^th century."

Andy Wong / AP

Christopher Cox, grandson of former U.S. President Richard Nixon, second from right, and his wife Andrea Catsimatidis, third from right, pose with Chinese tourists as they tour the Great Wall of China at Badaling, north of Beijing, on May 4. A delegation led by Cox is here to commemorate Nixon's centennial by retracing his 1972 historical visit to China.

Among the Chinese dignitaries was Tang Wensheng, who had been interpreter for Chairman Mao Zedong back then. Mao had suffered a stroke a few days before Nixon arrived, and she said the Chinese side was worried about whether Mao would be well enough. But the ailing Mao was able to meet Nixon.

Robert McFarlane, former national security adviser to President Nixon, said the summit set the scene for extensive sharing of privileged information.

"We shared the most sensitive intelligence about the Soviet Union with China, intelligence we didn't even share with our allies," he said.

He said this was designed as a mark of sincerity, but it also served Washington's purpose of further poisoning relations between the two communist giants.

Back then, of course, relations between China and the U.S. were fairly simple -- there weren't any.

Today China is a much more open, yet complicated, place. Relations can be tense and difficult. The two are economic and political rivals, and U.S. officials are much more regular visitors as they grapple with a host of issues from cyberspying to North Korea. 

"The problems haven't become any easier," McFarlane said. "Issues like cybersecurity, regional territorial disagreements between China and her neighbors and certainly terrorism -- all of these look daunting."

As the toasts got underway, there was much talk at the banquet of reviving the spirit of 1972.

"It’s important for the two countries to talk to each other frankly," McFarlane said.

Related links: 

Chairman Mao's granddaugher makes China's rich list 

China labels US the 'real hacking empire' after Pentagon report 

'Charlie Two Shoes': A story of wartime loyalty and friendship

MUNICH - The United States is ready for direct talks with Iran if it is serious about negotiations, Vice President Joe Biden said late Saturday, backing bilateral contact many see as crucial to easing a dispute over Tehran's nuclear program.

Speaking at a security conference in Munich, Biden said Iran - which says it is enriching uranium for peaceful energy only - now faced "the most robust sanctions in history" meant to ensure it does not develop nuclear weapons.

"But we have also made clear that Iran's leaders need not sentence their people to economic deprivation and international isolation," Biden said. "There is still time, there is still space for diplomacy backed by pressure to succeed. The ball is in the government of Iran's court."

To date, fitful talks on Iran's nuclear program have been between Tehran and the EU's top diplomat representing six world powers including Washington. But analysts have suggested that with his re-election behind him, President Barack Obama might have more leeway to take on direct negotiations with Iran.

That makes the year ahead critical for chances of overcoming a stand-off which, if left to fester further, could see Iran approach nuclear weapons capability, possibly provoking military action by Israel that could inflame the Middle East.

Progress on Iran would also help ease regional tensions as the United States prepares to pull most combat troops out of Iran's neighbor Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

Asked whether Washington might consider direct talks with Iran to smooth the process, Biden said, "When the Iranian leadership, Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei), is serious.

"We have made it clear at the outset that we would be prepared to meet bilaterally with the Iranian leadership, we would not make it a secret that we were doing that, we would let our partners know if that occasion presented itself.

"That offer stands, but it must be real and tangible and there has to be an agenda that they are prepared to speak to. We are not just prepared to do it for the exercise."

Negotiations with Iran have so far been overseen by European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton on behalf of France, Britain, Germany, China, Russia and the United States. But they have made scant headway, raising fears Iran is simply playing for time while it develops nuclear know-how.

Many believe no deal is possible without a U.S.-Iranian thaw, requiring direct talks addressing myriad sources of mutual mistrust and hostility lingering since Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution and the hostage crisis at the U.S. embassy in Tehran.

Iran has avoided direct, public talks with the United States, though some suggest Tehran would eventually welcome an opportunity to end its international isolation.

Speaking at a news conference in Munich, Republican Senator John McCain said he would have no objection to direct talks but questioned how much these would achieve if fundamental questions over Iran's nuclear program remained unresolved.

"I don't know when we will have direct talks between the United States and Iran. That is a subject for the president of the United States. I don't think anyone here objects to that," he said. But he added, "to have grounds for optimism, I think, would be a mistake."

Israel, which describes the prospect of Iran being able to weaponize enriched uranium as an existential threat, has made clear it would be ready to bomb the nuclear sites of its arch-enemy to prevent that outcome. The United States has also said it would not rule out the use of military force. 

Related:

Under fire from Republicans, Hagel ends marathon confirmation hearing

Updated at 2:20p.m. ET: In a hearing marked by sometimes sharp and pointed exchanges, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee she took responsibility for not adequately protecting U.S. personnel in the Sept. 11 attack on a diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in the killing of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. 

Defending the administration’s immediate handling of the attack, Clinton clashed at times with Republicans over the account the administration gave in the initial days after Sept. 11.

Clinton said the Obama administration did not try to mislead the American people about the cause of the attacks. “Nothing could be further from the truth,” she said as she sparred with Sen. Ron Johnson, R- Wisc.

She angrily told Johnson that at this stage it did not really matter what the precise origins or motives of the attack were: “What difference at this point does it make?”

She told Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, a Republican, “we did not have a clear picture” of all that was going on in Benghazi although she did acknowledge that senators had “legitimate questions” about the administration’s account.

Sen. John McCain, R- Ariz., -- after telling Clinton “we are proud of you” and that all over the world “you are viewed with admiration and respect” -- delivered a blistering criticism of the Obama administration’s handling of the events in Libya.

“There are many questions that are unanswered and the answers you’ve given this morning are frankly not satisfactory to me,” McCain told Clinton. He added “the American people and the families of these four brave Americans still haven’t gotten the answers they deserve.”

He asked Clinton whether she was aware of numerous warnings from Stevens and other Americans in Libya that the facility in Benghazi was not capable of resisting a sustained assault. He also said there had been other warning signs such as an attack on the British ambassador to Libya.

He angrily asked Clinton why Defense Department forces were not nearby to defend the Benghazi facility.

Last month a report issued by the Accountability Review Board (ARB) appointed by Clinton, blamed State Department officials for “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies” that led to protection for the Benghazi facility that was “grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.”

In her response to McCain, Clinton said, as she did to other senators on the panel, that some additional information on the causes and circumstances of the attack is in the classified portions of the report issued by the ARB. Senators and Senate staff can read the classified portions of the ARB report, but the public cannot.

And she blamed members of Congress for holding up additional aid to Libya that might make the country more secure and less chaotic. 

Clinton was testifying Wednesday afternoon on Benghazi before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

In his questioning of Clinton Wednesday morning, Sen. Rand Paul, R- Ky., told her, “I’m glad that you’re accepting responsibility. I think that ultimately with your leaving, you accept the culpability for the worst tragedy since 9/11, and I really mean that. Had I been president at the time and I found that you did not read the cables from Benghazi, you did not read the cables from Ambassador Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post.”

He added, “It’s a failure of leadership” which cost the Americans in Benghazi their lives. “I think it’s good that you’re accepting responsibility-- because no one else is.”

Paul also argued that U.S. personnel ought to never have been sent to Benghazi “in a war zone” without a military guard. “You shouldn’t send them in with the same kind of embassy staff that you have in Paris,” he added. 

Clinton replied that all four State Department officials criticized in the ARB report for their roles on the Benghazi events had been removed from their jobs and placed on administrative leave. “The ARB (report) made very clear that the level of responsibility for the failures that they outlined was set at the assistant secretary level and below.”

The furor over the Benghazi attack helped derail one possible nominee to replace Clinton at the State Department, UN ambassador Susan Rice, whom Republicans assailed for using administration talking points that portrayed the incident as a spontaneous response to an inflammatory anti-Islamic video.

But Clinton told the committee that in the hours and days after the attack, “I was not focused on talking points” and “I wasn’t involved in the talking points process.”

Recommended: Biden not shying away from 2016 speculation

In her opening statement, Clinton told the committee, “As I have said many times since September 11, I take responsibility.  Nobody is more committed to getting this right.  I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger, and more secure.”

Clinton's voice choked with emotion as she recalled the return of “those flag-draped caskets” from the Americans killed in Benghazi and put her arms “around the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters” of those killed. 

Clinton also used her testimony to deliver a vigorous call for continued U.S. involvement in the North African nation of Mali where the Obama administration is aiding French efforts to defeat Islamic jihadist forces.

She told the committee that the United States cannot allow Mali to become a safe haven for the group Al Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), warning of the risk of AQIM attacks on the United States itself.

Clinton also said she could not confirm reports that some of the terrorists involved in last week’s Algeria hostage taking were also involved in the Benghazi attack but called it a "new thread" to follow.

She did say that there is no doubt that Algerian terrorists have weapons they obtained from depots in Libya that were opened up and “liberated” after the dictator Moammar Gadhafi was toppled, with U.S. and NATO help, in 2011.

Gary Cameron / Reuters, file

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks about the hostage situation in Algeria during a joint news conference with Japan's Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida (not pictured) after their meeting at the State Department in Washington Jan. 18, 2013.

Clinton said she had accepted the ARBs recommendations for improvements in security procedures and had asked her subordinates “to ensure that all 29 of them are implemented quickly and completely.” She said these changes are designed to “reduce the chances of another Benghazi happening again.”

On Thursday the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold its confirmation hearing for Clinton’s successor, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who is the committee’s chairman and is likely to be confirmed without any opposition.

Updated 3:00 pm ET -- Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified Friday before congressional intelligence panels telling members that he had believed from the outset that the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was an act of terrorists.

NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell reported that members of the Senate Intelligence Committee said after hearing from Petraeus that Obama administration officials made a decision to hold back as classified information an explicit depiction of Benghazi incident as an act of terrorists -- therefore that description did not make it into the “talking points” that the administration prepared for officials when they went on TV talk shows and spoke to reporters.

Instead, the initial talking points focused on spontaneous reactions to an anti-Islamic video as a spark for the attack. Five days after attack, the administration dispatched U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to speak on the Sunday news shows to offer a preliminary explanation of the attack, which she attributed to an anti-Islamic video that was circulated on YouTube.

In the attack Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans – Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods and Sean Smith – were killed.

Keeping as classified the determination that the Benghazi attack was the work of terrorists may have been done in order to help pursue those very same terrorists.

“There might have been two tracks happening all along: the public statements that were reflecting part of what they may have known” and the classified information that terrorists had been the ones attacking the consulate. “The real question is if they knew it was terrorism all along – was there too much suggestion that a video or demonstrations may have been involved?” said O’Donnell.

House Intelligence Committee member Peter King, R-N.Y., told reporters Friday after Petraeus testified that the initial “talking points” from the Obama administration to prepare officials for what they should say publicly in the first days after the attack had been changed to delete references to any al Qaida involvement in the event.

King said he and his colleagues now needed to hear testimony from officials in the State Department, the Defense Department “and also people at the White House – to see if anyone at the White House changed the talking points.”

King told reporters after Petraeus testified that “his testimony today was that from the start (immediately after Sept. 11) he had told us that this was a terrorist attack, that terrorism was involved from the start.”

But King said that he himself “had a very different recollection" of what Petraeus had told the panel in the initial aftermath of the attack. 

"The clear impression that we (members of the House Intelligence Committee) were given (in the initial days after the attack) was that the overwhelming amount of evidence was that it arose out of a spontaneous demonstration and it was not a terrorist attack,” King said. 

Rep. C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger of Maryland, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts after hearing from Petraeus that “I can’t agree that there was entirely an intelligence failure” in the days leading up to the attack.

He said, “The intelligence community did put people in the area of Benghazi and in Libya generally. It was a hot spot, it was an area where you had to be on high alert – they did not pick up the actual attack itself. So we’re evaluating whether or not it was or was not an intelligence failure.”

Another House Intelligence Committee member, Rep. Tom Rooney, R–Fla., told MSNBC’s Roberts that he’d learned from the Petraeus testimony how inadequate the protection at the consulate was on Sept 11.

“We had less than a handful of security there for the ambassador,” Rooney said. “First of all, I don’t know why the ambassador was there on 9/11 to begin with, but that’s a whole other story. Second we were relying really on local Libyan militia who – if there was anything coordinated about the two attacks, at the compound and at the annex, it is that there was a coordinated absence by the people who were supposed to be protecting us.” He said the Libyan militia “were nowhere to be found” when the assault occurred.   

Rooney added that President Barack Obama has said “he did everything he could” to protect the consulate. “He may have done everything he could, but it wasn’t enough because our people are dead.” 

The investigation into the Benghazi events has become a major focus for members of Congress returning to the Capitol after last week’s elections. The episode has political implications not only for Obama but for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who may run for president in 2016.

Petraeus resigned one week ago after the revelation of his adulterous affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell.

Rice told NBC’s David Gregory on Meet the Press Sept. 16 that “putting together the best information that we have available to us today – our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was, in fact, initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo – almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.”

She added that in Benghazi “opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons, which, unfortunately, are readily available in post-revolutionary Libya, and that escalated into a much more violent episode.”

Rice is said to be in the running to be Obama’s nominee to be secretary of state once Clinton departs.

Slideshow: Petraeus case: Cast of characters

ISAF via Reuters file

Meet the people who have been pulled into the scandal that caused Gen. David Petraeus to resign.

Launch slideshow

But Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and other Republican senators have made clear they will use any means they can to block her nomination if Obama does select her.  

“I don’t trust her,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said of Rice, calling her “more a political operative than she is anything else when it comes to Benghazi.”

Obama defended Rice Wednesday, saying she had “represented the United States and our interests in the United Nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace… Should I choose, if I think that she would be the best person to serve America in the capacity of the State Department, then I will nominate her.”

McCain on Wednesday introduced a resolution to create a special eight-member select Senate committee to examine the attack on the consulate. But McCain’s proposal got a mostly chilly reception Wednesday from Chambliss and other senators.

NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Charles Dharapak / AP

Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney \arrives to deliver a foreign policy speech at Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Va., Monday, Oct. 8, 2012.

Updated at 12:20 p.m. ET: Mitt Romney accused President Barack Obama of leading a rudderless foreign policy, saying Monday that the threat of conflict in the Middle East is greater than it was four years ago.

The Republican presidential nominee delivered a major policy address at the Virginia Military Institute, which was intended to distinguish Romney from Obama on questions of foreign policy, while also casting Romney as a steady, presidential and plausible commander-in-chief for voters. 

Recommended: First Thoughts: Has the race changed?

The speech focused heavily on upheaval in the Middle East — the attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, popular uprisings in Syria and Egypt, the Iranian nuclear program and America's relationship with Israel — to level the charge that Obama had chosen to "lead from behind" as president.

"The president is fond of saying that 'the tide of war is receding.'  And I want to believe him as much as anyone," Romney said. "But when we look at the Middle East today … it is clear that the risk of conflict in the region is higher now than when the president took office."

Romney essentially argued that, in most instances, Obama had failed to project a clear and coherent American policy abroad. The GOP presidential hopeful suggested that he would use U.S. power with greater clarity, taking a tougher tack versus Iran and working to support allied forces in Syria, where the Assad regime has launched assaults on rebels that have left thousands dead.

Much of the speech dealt with the recent outbreak of violence in Libya, where a siege on a U.S. consulate — waged apparently by terrorists — left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

Romney said those attacks were "likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland on Sept. 11, 2001," reflecting the emerging admission by the Obama administration that the Libya incident was a terrorist attack, rather than a spontaneous protest connected to a web video about Islam, as had originally been thought.

Romney's handling of the immediate aftermath of the Benghazi attack, though, had partly prompted his decision to deliver such a broad-reaching foreign policy address as today's. The candidate earlier had charged the administration with, essentially, siding with the attackers on the U.S. consulate — an argument that was labeled by critics as capricious, since it came just hours after Stevens' death.

"I also believe the administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt, instead of condemning their actions," Romney said at the time. "It’s never too early for the United States government to condemn attacks on Americans and to defend our values."

Today, Romney placed blame for the attacks "solely" with those who had launched them, but argued that Obama had nonetheless been asleep at the wheel throughout the crisis.

"It is the responsibility of our president to use America’s great power to shape history — not to lead from behind, leaving our destiny at the mercy of events," Romney said. "Unfortunately, that is exactly where we find ourselves in the Middle East under President Obama."

That theme echoed throughout Romney's remarks, which included a vow to tighten sanctions against Iran's nuclear program and reverse a set of automatic spending cuts — which would fall heavily on the defense budget — set to take place at the beginning of 2013, barring action by Congress.

Romney also called for a closer relationship between the U.S. and Israel, a hallmark of the Republican nominee's campaign speeches, along with expanded free-trade pacts in the Middle East and beyond.

Slideshow: Mitt Romney's life in politics

Jonathan Ernst / Getty Images

From governor's son to presidential contender, a look at the life of Republican Mitt Romney.

Launch slideshow

The former Massachusetts governor also said he would act more forcefully to encourage popular uprisings in Syria and Egypt. Romney said he would "identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values" in Syria, and arm them. In Egypt, Romney said he would try to influence that government's development to support democracy and their peace treaty with Israel.

Monday's stagecraft, though, was essentially an effort to offer up Romney as a reasonable alternative to Obama as a world leader, and distinguish the two candidates more meaningfully. There were details, though, that were absent from Romney's speech; he didn't outline the standard by which he would authorize more sanctions or military action versus Iran. And while Romney called Obama's decision to withdraw the last "surge" troops from Afghanistan last month a "politically timed retreat," Romney would only have kept those troops there a few months longer, through the height of the fighting season.

Obama enjoys an advantage over Romney on both the question of which candidate would be a better commander-in-chief and which candidate voters trust to better manage foreign policy.

Forty-seven percent of voters said in last week's NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll that Obama would be a better commander in chief; 39 percent of registered voters preferred Romney. On the question of who would best handle foreign policy, Obama led 46 to 40 percent.

But there are additional signs that Obama faces vulnerabilities. Americans were split, 46 to 45 percent, in disapproving of the president's handling of the situation in Egypt, Libya and other Arab countries that are suffering from unrest.

"We just watched what leadership looks like," said Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, the Republican vice presidential nominee, in Ohio shortly after Romney's remarks concluded.

Still, the election is expect to focus primarily on issues of the economy, while foreign policy takes a backseat to more dominant pocketbook issues.

Foreign policy and national security strategy, though, will each be litigated further over the course of the campaign. One of the two remaining debates between Obama and Romney will be mostly dedicated to that subject, and this Thursday's vice presidential debate will pit Ryan — whose expertise rests on budgetary issues, not foreign policy — against Vice President Joe Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Peace in the Middle East -- probably not going to happen, and it’s Palestinians’ fault, according to Mitt Romney.

That was the sentiment from the Republican nominee for president at a closed-door fundraiser, according to released excerpts of video from the left-leaning magazine Mother Jones. Romney painted Palestinians as “having no interest” in peace and “committed to the destruction of Israel.”

“I'm torn by two perspectives in this regard,” Romney said when asked how he thinks the “Palestinian problem can be solved.” “One is the one that I've had for some time which is that the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish.”

This contradicts public comments from Romney that he believes in a "two-state solution." “I believe in a two-state solution which suggests there will be two states, including a Jewish state," he told the newspaper Haaretz.

Romney talks about the difficulty in establishing borders for an independent Palestine that would allow Israelis to thwart the flow of weapons from Iran to the region.

“We have got to keep the Iranians from bringing weaponry into the West Bank,” Romney said.

Related: Leaked video is the latest hit for Romney

He adds: “These are problems that are very hard to solve. And I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes -- committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel. I just say there is no way, and so, what you do is you move things along the best way you can and hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize this is going to remain an unsolved problem.

“The idea of pushing on the Israelis to give something up, to give the Palestinians to act is the worst thing in the world. We have done that time and time again. It does not work. The only answer is to show strength again, American strength, American resolve and the Palestinians someday reach a point where they want peace or that we are trying to force peace on them. That is worth having a discussion. But until then it's just a political thing.”

Recommended: Conservatives reaction mixed to Romney 47 percent video

Romney has been sharply critical of President Obama's handling of the Israeli-Palestinian relationship -- in particular, President Obama's urging Israel to halt settlement expansion.

American presidents have struggled for decades to broker peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Though the United States has provided Israel with military support and arms, it has traditionally maintained a role of neutrality when it comes to discussing the peace process.

This is not the first time Romney has found himself in the midst of controversy when it comes to Israeli-Palestinian issues.

Back in July, at a fundraiser during his overseas trip, Romney implied Palestinian “culture” was to blame for lower gross-domestic product in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority versus Israel.

“Culture makes all the difference,” Romney said. “Culture makes all the difference.”

The Romney campaign did not immediately respond to an email request for response.

A full transcript of the exchange is below:

QUESTION: You were in Jerusalem.  And we appreciate you being there.  How do you think that the Palestinian problem can be solved? What are you going to do about it?

ROMNEY: “I'm torn by two perspectives in this regard.  One is the one that I've had for some time which is that the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish. Now why do I say that? Some might say because the Palestinians have West Bank and have security and have set up a separate nation for the Palestinians. And then come a couple of thorny questions. I don't have a map here to look at the geography. But the border between Israel and the West Bank is obviously right there right next to Tel Aviv, which is the financial capital the industrial capital of Israel the center of Israel.

It's what the border would be seven miles from Tel Aviv to what would the West Bank. Nine miles, okay I came close. Nine miles. The challenge is the other side of the West Bank, the other side of what would be this new Palestinian state would be Syria at one point or Jordan. Of course the Iranians would want to do through the West Bank exactly what they did to Lebanon what they did in Gaza, which is the Iranians would want to bring missile and armament into West bank and potentially threaten Israel. 

So Israel of course would have to say that can't happen; we have got to keep the Iranians from bringing weaponry into the West Bank. Well that means who, the Israelis would patrol the border between Jordan, Syria, and this new Palestinian nation. Well the Palestinians would say no way we are an independent nation, you can't guard our border with other Arab nations. How about the airport? How about flying into this Palestinian nation? Are we going to allow military aircraft to come in and weaponry to come in, if not who is going to keep it from coming in? Well the Israelis. The Palestinians are going to say well we are not an independent nation if Israel is able to come in and tell us what to land in our airport.

These are problems that are very hard to solve. And I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes. Committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel. [inaudible] I just say there is no way and so what you do is you move things along the best way you can and hope for some degree of stability but you recognize this is going to remain an unsolved problem.

The idea of pushing on the Israelis to give something up, to give the Palestinians to act is the worst thing in the world we have done that time and time again. It does not work. The only answer is to show strength again, American strength, American resolve and the Palestinians someday reach a point where they want peace or that we are trying to force peace on them. That is worth having a discussion. But until then it's just a political thing.

President Barack Obama said he would have to rethink his current opposition to U.S. military engagement in Syria if the regime there were to use or move its chemical and biological weapons.

The president told NBC's Chuck Todd that he couldn't be "absolutely confident" that the stockpiles of weapons possessed by Bashar al-Assad's regime were completely secure.

"What I'm saying is we're monitoring that situation very carefully," Obama said in a surprise appearance in the White House briefing room.

But if the Assad regime were to use its weapons stockpiles, or alternatively, move it around, Obama suggested military action could be on the table.

"We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized," the president said. "That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

Earlier this month, when asked about contingency planning for the Syrian conflict, Secretary Hillary Clinton drew the "red line" at only the use of chemical weapons.

"Both the minister [Turkey Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu] and I saw eye to eye on the many tasks that are ahead of us, and the kinds of contingencies that we have to plan for, including the one you mentioned in the horrible event that chemical weapons were used. And everyone has made it clear to the Syrian regime that is a red line for the world," Clinton said at the time.

But today, he made sure to emphasize that all major players in the region have been informed of where his line falls.

"We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that's a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons," he said. "That would change my calculations significantly."

Obama also made a point of saying that the issue of chemical weapons doesn’t just concern Syria and the United States, but also allies in the region including Israel.

While the international community would still like to see a political solution to the violence in Syria, Obama said, “at this point the likelihood of a soft landing seems pretty distant."

The U.S. will most likely provide even more monetary humanitarian assistance to help those fleeing the Syrian conflict on top of the $82 million the government has already given. According to USAID, the United Nations “estimates that approximately 2 million people in Syria are in need of humanitarian assistance, approximately 1 million people are internally displaced, and more than 140,000 people have fled to the neighboring countries of Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, and Iraq.”