Jeff Fortenberry Quotes

Assad has to be removed, and then you have to actually put someone in that is a qualified leader that can start to build some trust in that area.

Bashar al-Assad needs to be replaced, but he can't be replaced with another Bashar al-Assad.

The U.S. would still like to see Assad go at some point. That would be our desired outcome.

The transition from tyranny to democracy is very hard. The Syrian people have to handle this in a way that works in Syria. And the brutality of the Assad regime is unacceptable.

With two civil wars, an al-Qaida presence and 40% unemployment, what else is President Saleh waiting for? He should leave office now.

The United Nations should come in and take over Liberia, not temporarily, but for life. To make Liberians believe in democracy, to make us believe in human rights, they need to go in and just seize control of the country. That is the only way Liberia will ever become the kind of country it was supposed to be.

Failed states have become breeding grounds for conflict.

No one in Washington has yet made a credible case that a post-Assad Syria can hold together.

The regime of Bashar al-Assad will inevitably go down. And its collapse will be loud not only in Syria but across the Arab world.

As was true in Iraq and Libya, the United States has no credible government or leader able to bring order, security, and freedom to the people of Syria if Assad is overthrown.

It's difficult to see how Syria can have any long-term future with Assad there as president. Many people would never return to that country if that were the case.

A lot of the issue that is happening in Syria is Assad is still there. And after years now, the administration, of saying Assad has to go, the pressure is not being applied to Russia, to Iran - the folks that are propping up Assad - and Assad himself to be able to actually be removed there and to transition to another leader.

We don't see a peaceful Syria with Assad in there.

Assad is a bad guy, but you may very well end up with worse than Assad.

I think we can all agree [Bashar] Assad is a bad and evil actor, but I'm not so sure that we want the Islamic rebels to be in charge of Syria either.

I worry a little bit about - quote - "regime change." We haven't had a great deal of success with that in years. That's just really difficult.

In Syria, if [Bashar al-] Assad had just been a statesman and handed over the reigns in time, Syria would not be heading down the nightmare that it is today.

We do not deny the possibility of peaceful [political] transition, but we are still awaiting the first case.

It is not our place to decide who should lead the Iraqi people. If Saddam [Hussein] leaves or has to be forced out of power and a new regime brought in, a new leadership brought in, I am confident it will be some combination of people inside the country and outside the country.

The only way to resolve the North Korean problem is to change the regime.

What’s so civil about war anyway?

There is no military solution to the challenges of Syria.

Today there's a change of guards in Denmark.

When you go into a country like Libya where a large chunk of the population wants the old regime back you could end up with a protracted civil war. That we're now in a stalemate was both entirely predictable, and predicted. That we're now relying on drones is disturbing. How vital can a cause be if we're not willing to risk American lives to defend it, and instead use robots and remote control operators? It gets me back to the larger feeling about the intervention - there's just not a compelling reason for us to be involved.