Bo Gritz Quotes

We've protected thousands of people in Libya; we have not seen a single U.S. casualty; there's no risks of additional escalation. This operation is limited in time and in scope.

I think there has to be greater heed paid by the Security Council members to military advice.

Then came the hostage crisis during which Carter did nothing to rattle the ayatollahs who hung tough until Ronald Reagan was inaugurated, when they suddenly backed down.

After the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the Obama administration steadfastly refused to say which element of the U.S. military had participated in the assault. Until Vice President Joe Biden decided to talk about it on national television, that is.

The doctrine of preemption has a long and distinguished history in the history of American foreign policy.

When you decide to get involved in a military operation in a place like Syria, you've got to be prepared, as we learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, to become the government, and I'm not sure any country, either the United States or I don't hear of anyone else, who's willing to take on that responsibility.

President Obama has never summarized the Obama Doctrine with such clarity, but here is what it would look like: 'I will undertake any military attack against our enemies, regardless of the risks and collateral damage, so long as it is over by the time I have to announce it.'

The Agency became so wrapped up in the military operation that it failed to appraise the chances of success realistically. Furthermore, it failed to keep the national policymakers adequately and realistically informed of the conditions considered essential for success.

We now prepared authorize bombing specific targets in [Guatemala City] area since you and feel this now the most effective move to achieve success. Targets should be selected with a view to having desired effect on army and regime morale with minimum political cost to [the United States].

Whenever America sends its citizens into harm's way, it must do so with eyes wide open.

I will not put the life of an American service member on the line unless that is the option of last resort.

The decision to put American lives at risk is a decision that has a very high hurdle to pass.

Under Obama, we have seen the U.S. military - the most exceptional force for peace in the world - degraded, downsized, decimated and demeaned, resulting in massive international instability and potential threats to our homeland.

I understand the risks associated with being a soldier. But I think as members of Congress, we should not intensify the chance that we'll have to commit troops to a military conflict unless it's absolutely necessary to defend the nation.

CIA has learned some tough lessons, especially when asked to tackle missions that fall outside our expertise.

No one shall take a military action on the Korean Peninsula without South Korean consent.

Blair overestimated his ability to influence U.S. decisions on Iraq.

Vietnam and Iraq are part of the same national trauma and delusion; we folded the war up when Reagan became president and unpacked it with Bush.

A Conservative government under Andrew Scheer would implement a coherent China strategy, taking a harder line on China's missteps.

If we have intelligence on the location of terrorist training centers, it is insane not to act.

The Iranian regime should know that we will hold them accountable for any actions that their Shia militias take in Iraq.

Relying on intelligence as the chief touchstone for decisions about whether and when to attack creates a wide opening for misunderstandings, divergent interpretations, and vulnerabilities to parties with an interest in either attack or delay.

We should make sure that we are never sending our troops into harm's way unless they're sent with a clear strategy to win, and learning lessons of the past to ensure that best path forward with what lies ahead.

I did not believe in the Iraq war.

On 'Bar Rescue,' failure is not an option. I have to try to turn the business around.