Posted on 02/27/2015 5:27:21 AM PST by Dave346
Former Florida governor and possible presidential candidate Jeb Bush calls Obama's foreign policy a "disaster" and insists that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has "every right to speak to Congress about the direct threats of a bad deal with Iran."
As the nuclear negotiations between Iran and Western powers continue to progress, former Florida governor and possible presidential hopeful Jeb Bush voices tough criticism against the U.S. administration on the issue, and welcomes Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu upcoming speech on the issue to a joint session of Congress next week.
Q: Netanyahu is coming to Washington next week to warn against the emerging bad deal with Iran. It seems that the administration is not happy about it. What is your reaction?
"I think the administration is making a mistake to disparage the prime minister. I'm sure he'll be respectful of our president. He has every right to speak to Congress about the direct threats that a bad deal with Iran would bring to the United States, to the world and of course to Israel. Many will welcome him because he is a strong supporter and ally of the United States and we should treat him with respect.
"It is disappointing that the current administration is going out of its way to criticize the visit, but I haven't heard of any Republicans who are not supportive of his speaking, and many Democrats are as well, I'm sure."
Q: It seems that the administration is very keen on striking an agreement with the Iranians. Why do you think that is so?
"It is inexplicable to me. The administration started with a clear objective of not allowing the Iranians to have nuclear weapons and now we're lowering that threshold to the point where the objective is to regulate their creation. I think that is very dangerous -- it creates clear instability in the region, it's an existential threat to Israel, and given the missile capabilities that Iran is developing, it creates significant risk to the rest of the world as well.
"Nothing in these negotiations deals with the proxy wars that Iran is fighting and Iran's influence is now significant in four capitals outside of Tehran. With a nuclear weapon, their efforts to destabilize the region would be even greater. So it makes no sense to me, to be honest."
Q: Some people in Israel are worried that the relations between Israel and the United States have suffered because of the Iranian issue. Would you agree?
"I'll say it in a positive way: There should be no daylight between Israel and the United States. The relationship is so important -- Israel is one of our strongest allies. I think the Obama administration is just wrong about putting daylight between the two countries, disparaging political leaders in Israel. It is completely inappropriate.
"So it's not just Iran, but in general a relationship that has been strong and important for our national security and certainly for the national security of Israel, is uncertain right now and it needs to be restored. It will be restored, but the president will still be in office for two more years. In the interim, it is important for the U.S. Senate, particularly, to insist on approving any agreement that is presented. They don't want to have sanctions lifted until they approve that agreement, so I think that is the proper next step."
Q: What is your take on Obama's foreign policy so far?
"President Obama's foreign policy has been a disaster, to be honest with you. There are not many places in the world where our relationship with countries has improved since he became president. It starts with his belief that if we disengage from the world, the world will be a more peaceful place, but there are too many examples in history where our disengagement ends up creating instability and serious problems. Be it Russian threats in eastern Europe now, or China's increasingly aggressive posture in Asia, or ISIS [Islamic State], or Iran, by our disengagement we are creating instability in the world. Our friends can no longer count on us and our enemies are no longer fearful. It is just the wrong approach."
Q: Is America under Obama the same as America under Bush?
"I don't think it is appropriate, or important, to ascribe motives for Obama's conduct. I just think the focus should be on the failures of his foreign policy. "
Q: What do you think of the emerging deal with Iran? Is it a bad deal?
"I haven't seen the specifics, but if Iran is not denied the ability to build a nuclear weapon and the missile capability to launch an attack, and if the negotiations fail to focus on denying these two basic points, then I think that any agreement that emerges would be a failed agreement.
"That was the president's mission when he embarked on this journey three years ago. But as the talks have been extended, we have negotiated with ourselves to the point where now we're talking about an agreement that is for 10 years rather than 20, we're talking about centrifuge capabilities that are dramatically different than when the negotiations started. We have made concessions at every step along the way and the Iranians have not given up anything."
Q: Why do think that is? Does Obama see a different reality than we do?
"I can't tell you why he is doing this. I think that the important thing, as it relates to our process, is to have the U.S. Senate play a more engaged role and to have bipartisan consensus on what an agreement should look like. A future agreement has to be passed by the U.S. Senate, as any major treaty would. The president has said he was going to do this by executive order, which gives me great concern."
Q: Would you support imposing more sanctions on Iran?
"I think the sanction regime that was established was working, and it was a mistake to loosen the sanctions in order to allow the negotiations to continue. There should be a clear understanding that a deal that would eliminate Iran's ability to procure and launch nuclear weapons would result in the lifting of sanctions. That should be the deal. Instead of unilaterally opening up the sanctions to get a deal, we should have done it the other way around."
Q: You meet average Americans every day. Would you say that the American public is also worried by the developments in the Iranian issue?
"Not as much as in Israel, I'm sure. But that is why the prime minister's visit is so important. It will garner a lot of attention. He is a plain spoken, very articulate speaker. He will lay out what the risks and concerns are, and I think that it will heighten awareness among the American people."
Q: So the visit is not a mistake?
"No. I think it will be helpful for Americans to hear the voice of our strongest ally in the region speak about this agreement in a way that lays out the existential threat it brings to the world."
Q: I would not be a true journalist if I didn't ask you whether you would like to take this opportunity to declare your candidacy for president in an Israeli newspaper.
(Laughs out loud.) "That would be an unusual launch! I'm seriously considering the possibility of running. There is no decision yet -- that will be later on."
No.
Your dog making doo doo on your new carpet is ‘inappropriate’.
“O’s” behavior to Israel is criminal-AND given our long standing alliance with Israel, “O’s” behavior is treasonous.
It is for a radical muslim.
Treasonous, more likely.
Jeb’s behavior toward the TEA Party is more than inappropriate .
Excellent point. His rhetoric on the tea party is significantly stronger.
He’d be a great candidate for the Democrat primary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.