servant's heart, rather than trying to push people down to make himself look better. we need i think you are looking at the next republican nominee. applause]d and here is what i promise to you. should i win this nomination, i will take it to hillary clinton and i will with her -- will whoop her. [applause] i will campaign with a hopeful optimistic message. with my arms wide open. campaigning hidden places where replicants haven't been in a long while and challenging the notion that somehow the left has a monopoly on compassion when, in fact, we have now seen what the last seven years look like when it relates to policies holding people back.

by applying conservative principles that draw people to our cause. it is my mission and i hope you will join in. god bless you all. thank you very much. >> we have about 13 minutes for some q&a. you touched on this a little bit in your remarks. want to ask you this to get squared away on the record. in 2004, your brother wrote a sharon thatesident israel would not be going back to these -- the 1957 borders and

that israel's assistance -- insistence as a jewish state impossible. will you reinstated the terms of this letter and make it u.s. policy? mr. bush: absolutely. [applause] troubling that secretary kerry -- i haven't heard president obama speak about this directly -- but even when we have this extraordinary threat of isis and islamic terrorism, which should be the first priority of this administration, he continues to hold out hope that he can impose a solution on israel. it's mind blowing, to be honest with you, that they have such a warped view of how this works or this is legacy-building. what we need to do is create conditions where there is a

willing partner in negotiation. if they palestinian authority had not had an election in a decade, they are not the legitimate elected regime. they can't speak for the palestinian people. they continue to incite the young people in their schools. there has to be a completely different kind of environment for serious negotiations to take place. and we should not impose that on israel. [applause] we have seen recently the u.s. engaging directly and indirectly in regime change. the dom, qaddafi, mubarak. you engage u.s. power for regime change in how would you strike a balance between human rights and stability in a region? mr. bush: it has to be in our national interest, clear and compelling interest. it cannot be based simply on the brutality of the regime.

it has to be based on is this the best interest for our country, first orf -- first and and wet, and our allies? have to have a clear strategy. if you don't have a clear strategy of how to get in and win with compelling force and how to get out, you've got problems. so the lessons i think in libya being a good example of this. if you are serious about regime change and it is in our national security interest, you better have a policy that is not just, all right, we got rid of qaddafi, and then leave. the net result now is that libya has become a greater threat to the region. and perhaps ultimately in the long haul, a threat to our country. the has to be a significant strategy for the completion of the mission and then i think we should do this wherever possible in partnership with the neighborhood and our partners. i don't believe that we should -- unless there is only this one option, we should be

unilaterally taking countries over, unless there is literally no other way to do it. it works far better when we do this in partnership with our allies. >> i know this is an area of expertise for you as well. it is a little bit afield from what we're talking about here. but how would your administration deal differently in the obama -- than the obama administration with the regional challenges with latin america as well. mr. bush: i wouldn't ignore latin america, which has in a common problem may for us by this administration. we have national security challenges on our border that need to be recognized. you have the northern triangle countries of guatemala, el salvador and honduras where the majority of immigrants crossing our border come from those countries because there is a lack of attention to the economic progress, to the criminality that exists, to the drug trafficking. engaged.o be

the best example of a partnership of that worked was project, colombian when president uribe was president and my brother in congress funded these programs and it was extraordinarily successful. we didn't unilaterally impose anything. it brought stability and economic growth to columbia. similarly, we should have something like that as a relates to the northern triangle countries and we need to be engaged. this sunday, there is an election in venezuela. venezuela is on the verge of being an ungovernable state that could create problems for our country. hezbollah is active in latin america. and we sit back and say, well, it someone gets elected president and the steel the democratic institutions in the country and we should not be concerned about that? this willbe because ultimately create national security problems with us.

so the challenges of iran and has below in latin america, do you think this is a real threat question mark mr. -- a real threat? bush: they are engaged in venezuela. they are engaged in argentina. they are injury -- they are engaged in central america for sure. and embedded in the lebanese and syrian populations that long ago moved to those countries. this is a real challenge for us. >> i know there has been some discussion in the past regarding jim baker as an advisor to you. you have been very clear about that. groupu share with the about -- i know you are not going to name somebody now, but some of the people you can see a secretary of state in your admin station? -- your administration?

mr. bush: i can't. i'm trying to win new hampshire first. with that. someone who has great skill. one of the problems in this administration is the white much power.y too everything is looked at through a political lens. the national security council has doubled in size in the last 25 years. of realut men and women talent and expertise in the department of defense and the department of state, you can create a much better, more robust foreign policy. the president has to create the clear direction on this. but you would pick people of talent that would be subjugated to some little whippersnapper lyrical hack. if you look at the nsc, they are run by people who are a part of the campaign. that would not happen in a bush and mistress in. people who are talented and have the capability to forge consensus in places where there might be disagreement. there will be an ample chance to be able to think things through.

one of the things i have learned my life is that i don't have every answer. i know what i don't know. i apologize for everybody on that regard. you don't have the humility to be able to know what you don't know, you are going to be a horrible president. we got one right now. [applause] >> share with us a little bit your thoughts about -- mr. bush: as it relates to the bigger question, the person i rely on the most as it relates to u.s.-israeli policy is my brother. [applause] i thought i could get an applause line out of that. [applause] >> i didn't know neil knew that much about israel policy. damn goodi've got a brother. >> yes, you do. we all love him.

we do. [applause] take a step back and think globally, if you would, if you were president in the last four years, how different would the world be today? [laughter] mr. bush: what a tough question. first of all, we wouldn't have had obamacare, which is the .reatest job killer we wouldn't have had a stimulus, which was all of this pent up progressive liberal demand waiting for a chance to have a liberal president with a dinner -- a democratic-controlled congress. we would have focused on traditional ways to start the economy. show-readye projects, they would work if there were any around. but we spent 8 billion dollars basically fulfilling the idyllic notion of what the progressive left thinks is the right thing to do rather than a bottom-up approach. we would reform the tax code rather than create higher taxes. we would have never created the

regulatory environment that right now stifles capital investing that is the only way to create highway jobs. we would have celebrated the success of american entrepreneurialism. is theic fracturing reason why we have had a 10% reduction in carbon emissions, not anything from the department of energy and their venture capital. that didn't work. but a bottom more -- a bottom-up approach creates more prosperity, more benefits, more jumpstarting of the economy than any program from washington, d.c. we would be growing at a far faster rate and median disposable income would be growing today rather than 23 hundred dollars down from the day that barack obama was elected. and we would not have six people stuck in poverty more than the day he got elected. and people would think their children and grandchildren would have more opportunities than what they believe today.

and we would be the leader of the free world, which is not what we are today. [applause] and we would not have had sequester to got to the military to make it harder for the next president of the united states to be an able commander in chief. we don't have the resources that we need to be truly the most effective fighting force possible. >> that leads me to another question. your nickname's veto corleone a. what would you do about sequester? how would you get the budget and the debt under control while rebuilding the military, without having a line-item veto like in florida? mr. bush: paul ryan has suggested a rescission version of it, which is an indirect veto.n of a line item you can go back to congress and there would be a 30-day period

for an up or down vote. barack obama has no relationship, no conversation with any republican. the gap is so wide today because, every day, another day goes by and he is always blaming the republicans, pushing them down and making himself look better. we need to get back to the regular order work. just because you disagree with someone, it doesn't mean they are evil. it just means they are wrong, rightwestern mark -- question mar? making ourstart democracy work again and we haven't passed a budget and how long, six years? not going to work. >> these are questions that were submitted in advance for our members. the number one question we got out of all of them from people across the country, how is your mom and dad? [applause]

mr. bush: they are doing fine. my dad's 91 and he can't walk anymore. he is in a wheelchair. stopped watching those csi shows. he is now watching fox again. [laughter] trying to figure out donald trump. it is hard for a guy like that to understand the trump phenomenon. my mother's an angel, believe it or not, as much as we give her grief. she is just phenomenal. for those who have to deal with their caregivers these days and the sandwich generation, there is a lot of us. my mom is the best caregiver in the world for the love of her life. they have been married almost 71 years. >> on behalf are jc, thank you for coming. please also give your parents are loving your brother and the bush family. thank you for being here.

announcer: we will have more from yesterday's jewish republican coalition for him. first, a news conference this afternoon with attorney general loretto lynch and james commie on the mass shooting in sammartino california. >> good afternoon, everyone. i joined the directors briefing today. as many of you know, with all bernadinorom san continues to evolve and we now have seen the names and faces of those victims, the fallen and the injured, our hearts go out to them and let's keep them in our prayers. not only those who did lose their lives, but those who were injured, include your law enforcement officials. we told you we would keep you