Republican Jeb Bush on Wednesday will seek to lay to rest any concerns that his foreign policy views might be influenced by the presidential legacies of his father and brother, saying “I am my own man.”
Bush, son of former President George H.W. Bush and brother of former President George W. Bush, will address the issue head-on in a speech at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. He will stress the changed global circumstances that await the next president.
It will be his first major foray into foreign policy since the former Florida governor announced in December that he is considering a run for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.
Bush, according to speech excerpts released by his political organization, will say he has been lucky to have a father and a brother who have shaped U.S. foreign policy and that he recognizes “my views will often be held up in comparison to theirs – sometimes in contrast to theirs.”
“I love my father and my brother. I admire their service to the nation and the difficult decisions they had to make. But I am my own man, and my views are shaped by my own thinking and own experiences,” he will say.
Bush is casting a wide net for advice on national security. An aide provided to Reuters a diverse list of 20 diplomatic and national security veterans who will be providing informal advice to Bush in the coming months.
Many of them are from past Republican administrations, including those of his father and brother as well as that of Ronald Reagan.
The list includes people representing a wide spectrum of ideological views in the Republican Party, from the pragmatic to the hawkish. It includes James Baker, known for his pragmatism in key roles during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush presidencies, and former World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz, a hawk as deputy defense secretary who was an architect of George W. Bush’s Iraq policy.
Among others are two former secretaries of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff, former national security adviser Stephen Hadley and a deputy national security adviser, Meghan O’Sullivan, as well as two former CIA directors, Porter Goss and Michael Hayden.
With polls showing Bush a front-runner among Republican candidates jockeying for the 2016 nomination, his aim is to set his own course on U.S. foreign policy without getting entangled in a debate about the legacy of his father and older brother.
Bush has said in the past that he supports his brother’s decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003, which could leave him open to attack from Democrats should he win the nomination. His complaint about the recent past in Iraq is that President Barack Obama has let American influence wane in the region.
“Each president learns from those who came before, their principles, their adjustments,” Bush will say. “One thing we know is this: Every president inherits a changing world, and changing circumstances.”
Bush’s Chicago speech is the second in a series of appearances designed to outline the foundation for what is likely to be a presidential campaign. Two weeks ago in Detroit he discussed his views on reducing income inequality and bolstering the U.S. economy.
His Chicago speech comes as the United States grapples with the threats posed by Islamic State militants and Russia’s aggression in eastern Ukraine.
Obama has relied heavily on air strikes against Islamic State targets in Syria and Iraq, but the militants retain large swathes of territory in both countries.
The United States has joined with European allies to impose sanctions on Russia that have had an impact but have yet to force Moscow to pull back.
Bush will criticize Obama’s handling of foreign policy and say that American leadership must projected consistently.
“Under this administration, we are inconsistent and indecisive,” he will say. “We have lost the trust and the confidence of our friends. We definitely no longer inspire fear in our enemies.”
His list of advisers suggests a willingness to listen to a variety of views from people with long experience, including former World Bank President Robert Zoellick.
Others include Paula Dobriansky, a former undersecretary of state, Kristen Silverberg, a former U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, who was a long-time member of the House of Representatives from Florida, and John Hannah who was Vice President Dick Cheney’s national security adviser.
(Editing by Ken Wills, Robert Birsel)
Watergate’s John Dean thinks Trump wrote part of his legal team’s brief — because it’s so terrible
Former White House counsel for Richard Nixon, John Dean, explained that the legal brief out of President Donald Trump's White House was so bad that it had to have been dictated by Trump himself.
Saturday evening, Trump's legal team, chaired by Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow and White House counsel Pat Cipollone, filed their own form of a legal brief that responded to the case filed by Democrats ahead of Tuesday's impeachment trial.
The document called the proceedings “constitutionally invalid” and claims House Democrats are staging a “dangerous attack” with a “brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election.”
WATCH: Prince Harry explains why he and Meghan are leaving the royal family — but promises ‘a life of service’
Prince Harry posted a video from an HIV/AIDS fundraiser his mother once supported, where he explained his methodology for leaving his profile role as a royal.
"I will continue to be the same man who holds his country dear," said Harry.
He went on to say that he doesn't intend to walk away and he certainly won't walk away from his causes and interests. "We intend to live a life of service."
In the speech, he thanked those who took him under their wing in the absence of his mother
"I hope you can understand that it's what it had come to," he said for why their family intends to step back.
‘You cannot expect anything but fascism’: Pedagogy theorist on how Trump ‘legitimated a culture of lying, cruelty and a collapse of social responsibility’
The impeachment of Donald Trump appears to be a crisis without a history, at least a history that illuminates, not just comparisons with other presidential impeachments, but a history that provides historical lessons regarding its relationship to a previous age of tyranny that ushered in horrors associated with a fascist politics in the 1930s. In the age of Trump, history is now used to divert and elude the most serious questions to be raised about the impeachment crisis. The legacy of earlier presidential impeachments, which include Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, provide a comparative historical context for analysis and criticism. And while Trump’s impeachment is often defined as a more serious constitutional crisis given his attempt to use the power of the presidency to advance his personal political agenda, it is a crisis that willfully ignores the conditions that gave rise to Trump’s presidency along with its recurring pattern of authoritarian behavior, policies, and practices. One result is that the impeachment process with its abundance of political theater and insipid media coverage treats Trump’s crimes as the endpoint of an abuse of power and an illegal act, rather than as a political action that is symptomatic of a long legacy of conditions that have led to the United States’ slide into the abyss of authoritarianism.