If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
Iraq is not about oil.
The largest single contributor to Iraq's security is that effort of Iraqi people who continue to step forward to join the various Iraqi security forces.
The United States has no credible evidence that Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria early last year before the U. S. -led war that drove Saddam Hussein from power.
There was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the attack of 911, I've never said that and never made that case prior to going into Iraq.
If Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us anything in recent history, it is the unpredictability of war and that these things are easier to get into than to get out of, and, frankly, the facile way in which too many people talk about, 'Well, let's just go attack them.
I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.
I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
Extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Had we gone the invasion route, the U. S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome.
It is hard as an American to support the failure of American military operations in Iraq. Such failure will bring with it the death and wounding of many American service members, and many more Iraqis.
I believe the democratic transformation in Iraq will lead to change in Middle East.
We still haven't gotten the message; we still don't see that it's bad. And then we copy everything about their [Roman Empire] structure. I mean Paul Bremer was the proconsul of Iraq. We're still using ancient terminology, we still have Senators and we have an Emperor, almost.
Because no matter how much money we spend there [in Iraq], as long as the people there see this money as. . . as assistance that is unwelcome, as long as they continue to be humiliated in their own country by us. . . I mean, the future looked bleak, and the future after that was in fact very bleak.
The President's budget pays for only six months of the war in Iraq and completely overlooks the transition costs of Social Security reform. The Administration always lied about the cost of the Medicare drug bill.
Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price.
Isil poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria, and the broader Middle East - including American citizens, personnel and facilities. If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region, including to the United States.
I am neither a pessimist nor an optimist. I am a realist, and the reality in Iraq is that it has been very hard and it continues to be hard.
[Barack] Obama can draw lines for himself and his country, not for other countries. We have our red lines, like our sovereignty, our independence, while if you want to talk about world red lines, the United States used depleted uranium in Iraq, Israel used white phosphorus in Gaza, and nobody said anything. What about the red lines ? We don't see red lines. It's political red lines.
Disarming Iraq is legal under a series of U. N. resolutions. Iraq is in flagrant violation of U. N. Security Council resolutions.