Karen Hughes Quotes

We all accept the world would be safer without Saddam's baleful dictatorship.

Everything you have said about chemical warfare in the last two and a half years has been swatted away be the facts…How do you sleep at night representing a government that has caused so much bloodshed and that has … crossed the line from any kind of civil war into weapons of mass destruction, into one of the highest crimes of international law.

Since I know that about a million people have been killed by the government of Iraq, I do not need much those weapons of mass destruction.

The possession of biological weapons—or actions unambiguously designed to produce them—should be categorized as a crime against humanity.

Saddam Hussein has openly admitted to the rest of the world that he had weapons of mass destruction. He used those weapons to kill his own people.

If it was up to the U.N., Saddam Hussein would still be killing his own people.

Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam has committed many crimes against humanity and against his own people.

In the case of Iraq, notwithstanding the violence there at the moment, the very fact that a hideous regime - responsible for genocide, for the use of chemical and biological weapons, aggression against two neighbors - has been removed in itself is a positive development.

I think the world is much better off without Saddam Hussein than with him.

The U.N. fiddled while Saddam slaughtered.

This idea of weapons of mass extermination is utterly horrible and is something which no one with one spark of humanity can tolerate. I will not pretend to obey a government which is organizing a mass massacre of mankind.

Saddam Hussein was undoubtedly a brutal dictator who had attacked Iraq's neighbours, repressed and killed many of his own people, and was in violation of obligations imposed by the U.N. Security Council.

Assad's suspected chemical weapons attack shows he is willing to go to barbaric lengths to hold onto power.

Who Saddam Hussein kills, dies.

I may find Saddam Hussein's regime abhorrent - any normal person would - but the survival of it is in his hands.

If Saddam were to be replaced tomorrow he would probably be replaced with someone who's just as bad or worse than he is.

As a Jew I cannot sit idle while genocidal atrocities continue to unfold in Darfur, Sudan.

It is beyond dispute that Saddam Hussein is a menace.

You can't, in the 21st century, continue to live in a system where people live under martial law for 30 years.

If the president of the United States says that attacks on civilians, starvation, and denial of religious freedom in Sudan are important international issues, they become so.

So to recap: we may or may not be going to war with Iraq because Saddam may or may not have weapons of mass destruction, which he may or may not use, or pass to other terrorists groups with whom he may or may not have links.

Despite the increase in world attention toward Sudan in the past months, the genocide in Darfur has continued without any serious attempt by the Sudanese government to do what governments primarily exist to do, protect their citizens.

Many instances of persecution and killing have occurred in countries with atrocious human rights records such as Sri Lanka, Guatemala and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Saddam Hussein has been brutal against his people, but when he was committing those crimes, the international community did not come to the rescue of the Iraqis.