Richard A. Clark Quotes

In responding to a terrorist attack, there are only two choices - take the fight to the enemy or wait until they hit you again. In my estimation, America chose the first.

On September 11, 2001, we thought we were going to be attacked many, many times between then and now. We haven't been. I believe we had a president who made the right decision at the right time... to put us on offense against terrorists.

If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long …. The war on terrorism will not be won on the defensive.

If terrorists attacked New York, Washington, or San Francisco with a weapon of mass destruction, the next day we will all be asking what steps we might have taken to prevent it. So the question is, “Why do we not take those steps now?”

For a generation, terrorists learned they could make war on free nations without fear of war in return. On September 12, the terrorists got war in return.

Offensively attack the terrorist so that you will not suffer the result of terrorism the next time.

Men do not rest content with parrying the attacks of a superior, but often strike the first blow to prevent the attack being made.

We reserve the right to respond to any act of the adversary at a time and place of our choosing.

With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got.

If we have reason to believe someone is preparing an attack against the U.S., has developed that capability, harbours those aspirations, then I think the U.S. is justified in dealing with that, if necessary, by military force.

Since the events of September 11, we've rightfully changed our military strategy so we're now taking the fight to those individuals who aim to do us harm, rather than waiting for another atrocious attack to happen.

We are in a war on terrorism. We need to conduct that war and take it to the terrorists, not here at home.

If America has the right to target Osama bin Laden, or terrorists, of course Israel has the right to defend itself from terrorism.

When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him.

I should like to do something to quiet the alarm about our ... vulnerability to aircraft attack ... is it not much better, if we are threatened by an attack from the air, to go directly and try to root out the land base from which the attack comes, and be equipped to do that, rather than to sit back and wait for them to be on top of us and then shoot at them?

We can’t defend against terrorists without going after states who support or aid the terrorists.

We cannot let our enemies strike first. The overlap between states that sponsor terror and those that pursue WMD compels us to action... To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary act preemptively

… the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

I believe that when you are attacked like we were attacked in America by these terrorist groups, that we not only have to respond in kind, we've got to go farther. We've got to destroy these groups because just sure as we don't - if we didn't respond, we will be hit again and again and again, and we will live in fear.

Hardened terrorists are coming here to hit us hard if we don't hit them first.

I consider Bush's decision to call for a war against terrorism a serious mistake. He is elevating these criminals to the status of war enemies, and one cannot lead a war against a network if the term war is to retain any definite meaning.

Today, we are now deciding how do we treat those who are choosing to carry out a war against us, non-U.S. citizens who are choosing to take us to task for what we believe and who we are. In this conflict, we have to decide how we are going to try to find these terrorists.

I believe the war on terror is the vital discussion of this decade and of our generation, probably. To win the war on terror, you need a good offense and a good defense. On defense, I regret to say, basically, this administration has not come close to doing what is necessary.

The United States does not view our authority to use military force against Al Qaeda as being restricted solely to 'hot' battlefields like Afghanistan.

We have struggled with terrorism for a long time. In the Reagan administration, I was a hawk on the subject. I said terrorism is a big problem, a different problem, and we have to take forceful action against it. Fortunately, Ronald Reagan agreed with me, but not many others did.