Paul Wolfowitz Quotes

War on terrorism defines the central preoccupation of the United States in the world today, and it does reflect in my view a rather narrow and extremist vision of foreign policy of the world's first superpower, of a great democracy, with genuinely idealistic traditions.

We, Britain and Germany, can neither of us be happy about our handling of the Iraq war.

American presence is, you know, the major cause of balance of power and the stability in this region.

I think President Obama has always been a little bit underestimated. Some of the things he's done with foreign policy have been unassailable. Getting us out of Iraq, killing Osama Bin Laden.

So I think that our foreign policy, the president's strong and principled leadership when it comes to the war against terror and foreign policy is going to be an asset.

When we see a lack of leadership coming from the White House, that's what brings leaders in Turkey to attack Israel the way they do. When we see a lack of leadership coming from the White House, that's why we see the leader of Iran... continuing to build the nuclear reactors.

And, perhaps most importantly, regional conflicts will again and again confront us with a cruel choice between costly engagement and costly indifference.

It's alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States.

The Sudan bombing is a blot on the Clinton presidency, and a blot it ought to remain.

As the U.S., the world is questioning why not end it, and so if, in fact, we were to pull out, the world would definitely question why we did this to begin with. But I still believe the world would call upon us for help if they needed it.

By linking these countries together in his 'axis of evil' speech, President Bush implied an identity between them not only in terms of their threat, but also in terms of the action necessary to deal with the threat. A lot of work will now need to be done to delink the three, and to show why military action against Iraq is so much more justified than against Iran and North Korea.

By invading Iraq, the President has undermined the War on Terrorism.

The question of when you intervene is probably the toughest question of American foreign policy.

We have no desire to be the world's policeman. But America does want to be the world's peacemaker.

For nearly 7 decades United States has been the anchor of global security. This is meant more than forging international agreements. It has meant enforcing them.

I'm a little disappointed in what's happened. I'm beginning to lose faith in Obama. This Syria thing is ridiculous. He should not be drawing red lines.

The war in Afghanistan is not of a peace with the rest of Obama's worldview. It's a holdover from the era that his election was supposed to bring to a close.

War on terrorism reflects, in my view, a rather narrow and extremist vision of foreign policy for a superpower and for a great democracy with genuinely idealistic traditions.

The Great Seal was an early proclamation of 'humanitarian intervention,' to use the currently fashionable phrase.

The American people are sick of our failed regime change wars.

America's foreign policy lacks the backbone to do the right thing in Afghanistan - which is leave.

I did not support the U.S. decision to intervene with military force in Libya. The evidence was not persuasive that a large-scale massacre or genocide was either likely or imminent. Policies other than military intervention were never given a full chance.

While American interests in the Middle East must obviously be protected, America's credibility to support democracy for everyone everywhere is crucial.

I profoundly do not believe that the United States could make things better in Syria by being there. And we have an evidentiary record of what happens when we're there - nearly a decade in Iraq.

I think that the decision to go to war in Iraq was a mistake.