I know what the counterterrorism feels like because I was there. But I also operated within limits. And within the United States government, we've decided long ago that there are limits on what we're going to do in the war against terrorism.
The key battleground in the war on terrorism, therefore, is in the minds of the American public.
Similarly, today, we do not know what will happen as we wage the War on Terror. We do know that we can count on the strong support from our closest ally and friend in the world in winning this war to secure our freedoms and the freedoms for all peoples throughout the world.
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.
Should we freeze or postpone prospective tax cuts and avoid any new tax cuts until we are sure we have the money to pay for the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq.
I'm as frustrated with the French, I think, as anyone, but look, there's going to be other challenges and there are going to be other issues. As long as there's a war on terrorism going on, we're all going to have to work together.
Bottom line is, you're not going to win the war against terrorism without the help of Muslims... as well as Hindus and a lot of other groups. That's a no-brainer. Many attacks have been thwarted because of information coming from people of different faiths.
The open-ended nature of the struggle against it means that the war on terrorism, unlike conventional wars, cannot be viewed as a passing emergency. That fact has important implications for the debate about how much liberty we should give up so the government can fight terrorism more effectively. Since there’s now way of knowing when the war is over – no territory to occupy, no surrender to accept – any sacrifices we make are likely to be permanent.
It's probably time to end the global war on terrorism.
I admire President Chavez for his strength to resist the United States. Instead, Bush is waging a war of terrorism against the world.
There isn’t any doubt that in fighting the War on Terrorism you increase the power and scope of government, and it becomes more intrusive.
But the central point is that any campaign against Iraq, whatever the strategy, cost and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism.
To demand the requirements of nations to contribute to the struggle against terrorism, we need much more precise definitions so that the war against terrorism is not used, [even] as it protects, to justify other purposes -- domestic purposes or external purposes. This discredits the very notion of a joint fight against terrorism.
The point I wanted to make was, as we have moved forward on the war on terrorism, FISA has been increasingly effective in terms of results.
I've made it clear, Madam President, that the war against terrorism is not a war against Muslims, nor is it a war against Arabs. It's a war against evil people who conduct crimes against innocent people.
For the FBI and for the United States, the war on terrorism is a complex and perplexing issue. It is as complex and perplexing as any issue we have ever faced.
There was nothing wrong - and everything right - with analyzing a law that establishes boundaries on interrogation in the war on terrorism.
