Jeb Bush on Homeland Security Republican FL Governor; V.P. prospect

Reverse the sequester and rebuild the military

TRUMP: What we want to do, when we want to do it, and how hard do we want to hit? We are going to have to hit hard to knock out ISIS. We're going to have to learn who our allies are. We have allies, we have no idea who they are in Syria. Do we want to stay that route, or do we want to go and make something with Russia? But very important, who are we fighting with? Who are we fighting for?

BUSH: This is the problem. Donald Trump brought up the fact that he would accommodate Russia. Russia is not taking out ISIS. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that Russia could be a positive partner in this. I would restore the military, the sequester needs to be reversed. I would destroy ISIS, and I would create a policy of containment as it relates to Iran's ambitions and make it make clear that we are not going to allow Iran to move towards a nuclear weapon Those three things would be the first and foremost things that we need to do.

Closing Guantanamo is a complete disaster; it keeps us safe

BUSH: No, I wouldn't. I think where we stand is the appropriate place. But what we need to do is to make sure that we expand our intelligence capabilities. The idea that we're going to solve this fight with predator drones, killing people somehow is more acceptable than capturing them, securing the information. This is why closing Guantanamo is a complete disaster. What we need to do is make sure that we are kept safe by having intelligence capabilities, both human and technological intelligence capabilities far superior than what we have today. That's how you get a more safe place is by making sure that we're fully engaged. And right now, this administration doesn't do that.

RUBIO: The bigger problem is we're not interrogating anybody right now. Guantanamo's being emptied by this president. We should be putting people into Guantanamo, not emptying it out,

Our force level is so low that we can't even project force

And for the life of me, I have no understanding why the president thinks that everything is going well. Terrorism is on the [rise], China, Russia is advancing their agenda at warp speed, and we pull back.

As president of the United States, I will be a commander in chief that will have the back of the military. We will rebuild the military to make sure that it is a solid force, not to be the world's policeman, but to make sure that in a peaceful world, people know that the United States is there to take care of our own national interests and take care of our allies.

We're still flying B-52's; they're now older than the pilots

The Kurds are our best ally; and they're Muslim; arm them!

BUSH: Well, first of all, we need to destroy ISIS and the caliphate. We need to arm directly the Kurds. They're Muslim. And all of that has to be done in concert with the Arab nations. And if we're going to ban all Muslims, how are we going to get them to be part of a coalition to destroy ISIS?

TRUMP: Jeb doesn't really believe I'm unhinged. He said that because he has failed in this campaign. I don't want our country to be taken away from us, and that's what's happening. We want to make America great again. And Jeb, in all fairness, he doesn't believe that.

BUSH: Banning all Muslims will make it harder for us to do exactly what we need to do, which is to destroy ISIS. We need a strategy. We need to get the lawyers off the back of the warfighters. Right now under President Obama, we've created this standard that is so high that it's impossible to be successful in fighting ISIS.

Syrian refugees already in US can stay

CARSON: I think that may be a little bit extreme, to be honest with you. But rather than have to face situations like that, let's go ahead and support the efforts that already exist that really will take care of millions of people. And why would we continue to increase the complexity of the situation in this country without solving the problem by bringing people over here who are not adequately screened?ÿThat doesn't make a lot of sense.

Let military experts determine troop count

BUSH: I would listen to the military commanders and give them the mission, which is, how do we destroy ISIS?ÿIt is Islamic terrorism. It's not a law enforcement engagement. And listen to them and then develop a clear strategy. I can't tell you the force levels required to do this. I do know that it has to be done in unison with our allies. We can't do this alone, but we must lead.ÿ

We don't need a divider-in-chief: rebuild the V.A.

My brother kept us safe after 9/11

BUSH: As it relates to my brother, there's one thing I know for sure. He kept us safe. You remember the fire fighter with his arms around it? He sent a clear signal that the United States would be strong and fight Islamic terrorism, and he did keep us safe.

Stop the craziness of the sequester & rebuild the military

FactCheck: No, Benghazi wasn't 1st deadly assault since 1979

• 1/22/2002. US Consulate in Calcutta, India: 5 killed.
• 6/14/2002. US Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan: 12 killed.
• 2/28/2003. US Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan: 2 killed.
• 5/12/2003. US Compound in Riyadh, Arabia: 36 killed (9 Americans).
• 7/30/2004. US Embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan: 2 killed.
• 12/6/2004. US Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: 9 killed.
• 3/2/2006. US. Consulate Karachi, Pakistan (again): 4 killed (one Diplomat).
• 9/12/2006. US Embassy in Damascus, Syria: 4 killed.
• 3/18/2008. US Embassy in Sana'a, Yemen: 2 killed.
• 7/9/2008. US Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey: 6 killed.
• 9/17/2008. US Embassy Sana'a, Yemen (again): 16 killed.

Deal with bullies like Putin with strength, not nuance

"I'm not talking about being bellicose--but saying 'here are the consequences of your actions', that would deter the kind of bad outcome we don't want to see."

Bush said signaling what further sanctions Russia could face, and reassuring Poland & the Baltic states that the US would meet its NATO obligations to view an attack on one member state as an attack against the whole alliance, could halt Putin's aggression. "If he thinks we're resolute, that's the greatest possibility of restricting any kind of further aggressions." However, he said, it was essential to ensure that the US did not isolate Moscow to such an extent that it ended up in the arms of China.

We need strategy against ISIS: advisory but not military

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who is currently on a tour of Germany, Estonia, and Poland, tweeted, "In Germany, Obama admitted again what has been clear for a while, he has no ISIS strategy. A serious effort to defeat them is needed."

Many GOP candidates had criticized Obama's ISIS strategy even before the president's made his comments. Bush appeared last week on CBS's "Face the Nation" and called for a more aggressive approach to ISIS--though one that would limit American military ground support to mostly an advisory role. "We need a strategy. We don't have a strategy right now," he said.

Weakness invites war: our military should equal any threat

The President's word needs to be backed by the greatest military power in the world. The president should show leadership--and commitment to solving the problem.

Having a military that is equal to any threat is not only essential for the commander-in-chief--it also makes it less likely that we will need to put our men and women in uniform in harm's way. Because I believe, fundamentally, that weakness invites war--and strength encourages peace.

The threats of the 21st century will not be the same as the threats of the 20th--and it is critical that we adapt to meet this challenge. We have no reason to apologize for our leadership and our interest in serving the cause of global security, global peace and human freedom.

Issues where Rand Paul disagrees with Jeb Bush

OpEd: a multilateralist more than a neoconservative

Jeb said, "I love my brother. I'm proud of his accomplishments." That applies a lot to war issues, as does Jeb's statement that "history will be kind to George W. Bush."

Jeb will spend the campaign prep season distancing himself from his older brother. How he does so on was policy is yet to be seen.

OpEd: Distancing himself from brother & neocons

Can Jeb Bush so easily make a "clean break," so to speak, with W.? According to the website On the Issues, Bush was a founding member of the Project for a New American Century, the neoconservative outfit formed in the 1990s that played a leading role in generating support for war in Iraq and whose members took up key positions in the administration of George W. Bush, Jeb's brother.

Lately, Bush hasn't said much about either PNAC, his brother or foreign policy generally. According to Defense News, Jeb Bush's views on foreign policy and defense are closer to those of his father--i.e., more centrist, more realist, more diplomacy-minded, more Obama-like--than they are to the views of his militarist brother.

Conflicting accounts of Benghazi emboldens terrorists

Bush indicated the administration's mixed messaging makes America look weak. "When the world sees us as uncertain and not surefooted, they act," he said. "Our friends act by pulling away and nervously kind of not being assured that the United States is there to support them. And our enemies are emboldened. "So the tragedy of this is that four people lost their lives; great public servants. And then, because of the politics of this, the Obama administration sent such a confusing signal out that they did themselves no good. And they've put the United States in a more perilous position," he added.

Benghazi attacks had warnings which were ignored

1985: Contra freedom fighters' cause is noble and just

By late 1986, with the whole Iran-Contra Affair dominating the headlines and hammering the White House just as George Sr. got ready for his long-awaited run for the presidency, Jeb was splitting hairs as to how much, exactly, he had known about the shipments from Florida to Honduras, and thence onward into Nicaragua. "What I have done is a far cry from being part of an arms supply link to the contras," he said, but acknowledging that he had helped with "nonlethal" assistance.

Save Florida's 21 military bases from closure or downsizing

Make Florida the most military-friendly state in the nation

Threat from 9/11 is unprecedented for our generation

As I have come to expect from Floridians, we have been extraordinary in our response to that threat. As a state, we will meet, and soon overcome, the obstacles that evil has devised. We will understand, and soon eliminate, any barrier that would keep this state from realizing its destiny. And when we do, we will be stronger and better for it. Floridians are united as never before, and when the current crisis has passed, we will remain bound to one another in a spirit of caring and community that will endure. Stronger, wiser, with an unshakable determination: that is the state of our state.

We must continue to thwart those who would harm us. We must renew our commitment to ensure the security of our citizens and our guests.

$17M for new programs for terrorism response

I am proud of the rapid response of the Legislature in aggressively addressing this new threat. A few weeks ago, in special session, you dedicated more than $17 million in new programs to bolster homeland security, put into place harsher criminal penalties for terrorist acts, and created a new, coordinated system for law enforcement's response to terrorism.

But we must do more. I am proposing this session that we spend $45 million to further strengthen domestic security, including $6 million to continue the efforts begun in the current year.

Deal with terrorism as a joint federal-state responsibility.

• Handling Information Needs.
  Many of the operational, programmatic, and funding activities associated with terrorism consequence management preparedness are classified because of national security. Thus, the sharing of critical information is hampered. State governments must be viewed as strong partners in the US’ national security efforts, particularly as related to terrorism.
• Managing Consequences.
  Managing the short- and long-term consequences of terrorism is among the responsibilities of state and local government supplemented by the resources of the federal government, coordinated by FEMA.
• Supporting Public-Private Cooperation.
  Terrorism preparedness efforts should be inclusive of key private sector entities such as defining the appropriate roles and responsibilities for public and private health and medical communities.
• Clarifying the Role of the National Guard.
  The role of the National Guard in terrorism response activities is to support federal, state, and local response agencies with equipment, facilities, and personnel. Any assignment of responsibility should enhance the nation’s terrorism consequence management capability and provide for the contingency of the National Guard being called to assist active and reserve components in dealing with a major military conflict.
• Federal Responsibility
  Governors recognize the need to coordinate programs among federal agencies to address domestic terrorism and appreciate the efforts of the National Domestic Preparedness Office. However, they encourage greater clarification of the currently fragmented structure of federal responsibilities and support increased cooperation among federal agencies to better enable states to plan for domestic terrorism responses. Governors urge appropriate funding, maximum coordination of program components, and coordinated service delivery within states and localities.

Include states in anti-terrorism planning.

The Issue

NGA’s Position

Increase defense spending to meet global responsibilities.

American defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century. We aim to change this.

We are living off the capital--both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements--built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges.

We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;