J. William Fulbright Quotes

I think there is a failure in foreign policy. And you have to acknowledge that under Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton was the architect of that foreign policy. Whether it was malevolent or not, I don't know.

No Western government has ever played the long-term in terms of foreign policy.

In foreign policy you have to wait twenty-five years to see how it comes out.

It is like our foreign policy has attention deficit disorder.

Ninety percent of foreign policy is reacting to whatever's happening out there.

We must reject the idea of isolationism, . But that doesn't mean we should get involved in every civil war around the world.

We're in danger of breaking our army and preventing our national leaders from having the flexibility to confront not just Iraq and Afghanistan, but crises around the globe.

We believe that government in Britain should be working to restore our reputation on the international stage after Iraq and engage better within Europe.

Bill Clinton's foreign policy experience stems mainly from having breakfast at the International House of Pancakes.

Every day as Chancellor I see alerts telling me of risks around the world.

I used to have a little saying I used when people said, 'What are your priorities?' I'd give them a bit of government alphabet soup. I'd say 'CTCPROW: Counterterrorism, counterproliferation, rest of the world.'

And so I think that the idea of America working with other countries to solve problems is good for us, and it is part of digging us out of the 'my way or the highway' approach that was evident in the previous eight years.

In foreign policy, the only thing worse than not doing something is doing something that fails or makes the situation worse.

There are legitimate, even powerful arguments, to be made against the Bush administration's foreign policy. But those arguments are complicated, hard to explain, and, in the end, not all that sensational.

After September 11, the European governments have completely failed. They are incapable of seeing beyond their own national scope of interests.

I'm tired of the U.S. getting involved in every country's individual disputes.

In foreign policy, there are times when speaking with one voice - and it doesn't have to be mine - allows us to engage better on issues, and enables us to do things more effectively.

The United States plays, for the most part, a constructive global role, and to the extent that that role shrinks, other countries, even those most critical of what America does abroad, will suffer.

Americans understand that our security is enhanced when the United States is trusted and respected in the world.

Look, I think the notion that there's a dogma or doctrine of foreign policy that gives you a textbook recipe for how to react to all situations is really nonsense.

Looking back over my more than a half century in intelligence, I have not experienced a time when we've been beset by more crises and threats around the globe.

We have to develop preventive diplomacy.

Unilateral preemption should not in any way be the model for how we conduct international relations... It brings us into very dangerous territory and it could be used and abused by any other country. We need to continue to base our security on multilateralism, and on the Security Council.

Unilateralism in secret is sometimes necessary at the height of a crisis.

Foreign policy should be strategic, not tactical.