Condoleezza Rice Quotes

One thing that we should have learned from history is to pay attention to the words of foreign leaders.

The chief threats to security come from failed states.

No world power has ever tried to manage affair in this particular circumstance: The cycle of News, the cycle of crises, the complexity of grievances in increasing numbers of failed and failing states.

Without a near-peer competitor (or several) to deter or a major war on the horizon, Washington found a new foreign policy calling: renovating weak or failed states.

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.

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.

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 I decide who to vote for as president, I ask myself who will be best for America and for the world. An important component of my answer involves my assessment of the candidate's willingness and ability to protect Israel's security, since I strongly believe that a strong Israel serves the interests of the United States and of world peace.

Politicians differ in their views whether Russia or Islamic State is a bigger menace, and I personally think that Islamic State is the bigger threat.

Our safety requires a long-term military presence in the Middle East because that's where the plans to attack us are emanating.

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.

Foreign policy is consumed with momentary crises —– often created by failing states and violent groups. But in the long run, he future is shaped by winners, not noisy losers.

Do we really want a world in which every country feels entitled to attack any other that might someday threaten it?

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.

You have repeatedly asserted that you and the German people have no desire for war. If this is true there need be no war. Nothing can persuade the peoples of the earth that any governing power has any right or need to inflict the consequences of war on its own or any other people save in the cause of self-evident home defense.

America’s military bases around the world are centers of stability in unstable regions.

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.

Now the situation is perilous, and the Powers are glaring at us like tigers eyeing their prey, all trying to barge into our country. Considering the financial and military situation in China today, we will of course try and avoid a war … But if our powerful enemies try and force us to yield to demands to which we cannot possibly consent, then we shall have no other alternative but to rely on the justice of our cause and to unite and fight.

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.

Should President Clinton have killed Osama bin Laden when he had the opportunity in 1990s? Should President Bush have sent the U.S. military into Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein in 2003? Should President Obama have withdrawn all troops from Iraq in 2011? Such questions provide no real insight into future considerations.

Well, human security is a concept that I am very committed to enshrining in American foreign policy.

We had eight years of Barack Obama depleting our military, ignoring a lot of the threats around the world.

You underestimate John Bolton at your peril.

I'll tell what reckless is. What reckless is is calling [Bashar] Assad a reformer. What reckless is allowing Russia to come into Crimea and Ukraine. What reckless is is inviting Russia into Syria to team with Iran. That is reckless. And the reckless people are the folks in the White House right now. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are the reckless people.

For the Russians, frankly, it's time that we punched the Russians in the nose. They've gotten away with too much in this world and we need to stand up against them, not just there, but also in Eastern Europe where they threaten some of our most precious allies.