There may be circumstances in which damaging our relationship with countries over human rights is counterproductive and the benefits to human rights may be very small because of our limited capacity to enforce our stance. That was the dilemma the United States faced after Tiananmen Square.

The United States should not engage in tit-for-tat polemics directed at its most important allies. That is as demeaning as it is destructive.

The mullahs are part of the past in Iran, not its future. But change in Iran will come through engagement, not through confrontation.

Because America is a democracy, public support for presidential foreign-policy decisions is essential.

Given the accelerating velocity of history, we should begin charting deliberately the next phase in its trajectory.

We cannot have that relationship if we only dictate or threaten and condemn those who disagree.

Pakistan's political instability is its greatest vulnerability, and a decline in U.S. power would reduce America's ability to aid Pakistan's consolidation and development.

One-sided national economic triumphs cannot be achieved in the increasingly interwoven global economy without precipitating calamitous consequences for everyone.

The security link between us and Europe is very important for European security but also for our security.

There's no point considering something which is very unrealistic.

We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Moderation and bipartisan consensus go hand in hand.

Not to mention the fact that of course terrorists hate freedom. I think they do hate. But believe me, I don't think they sit there abstractly hating freedom.

What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?

Missing from much of the public debate is discussion of the simple fact that lurking behind every terroristic act is a specific political antecedent. That does not justify either the perpetrator or his political cause. Nonetheless, the fact is that almost all terrorist activity originates from some political conflict and is sustained by it as well.

Eurasia is the world's axial supercontinent. A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world's three most economically productive regions: Western Europe and East Asia.

The public has been told repeatedly that terrorism is 'evil,' which it undoubtedly is, and that 'evildoers' are responsible for it, which doubtless they are. But beyond these justifiable condemnations, there is a historical void.

I would like to promote internal change in Iran - which is more likely if we don't fuse Iranian nationalism with Iranian fundamentalism.

I think we have to pay attention to the Arab masses not just in the Gulf States, but also in the hinterlands.

To increase the zone of peace is to build the inner core of a stable international zone.

We don't have a public that really understands the world anymore, and in the age of complexity, that problem becomes much more difficult.

With the decline of America's global preeminence, weaker countries will be more susceptible to the assertive influence of major regional powers.

The first and most important is to emphasize the enduring nature of the alliance relationship particularly with Europe which does share our values and interests even if it disagrees with us on specific policies.

It is in the U.S. interest to engage Iran in serious negotiations - on both regional security and the nuclear challenge it poses.

The 'war on terror' has created a culture of fear in America.

Being a former first lady doesn't prepare you to be president.

Commitment and credibility go hand in hand.

Saddam Hussein was an odious dictator, but he was also a very effective opponent of Iran. He was also a very effective opponent of al-Qaida.

American power worldwide is at its historic zenith.

It is important to ask ourselves, as citizens, whether a world power can provide global leadership on the basis of fear and anxiety.

Democrats should insist that a pluralistic democracy such as ours rely on bipartisanship in formulating a foreign policy based on moderation and the nuances of the human condition.

America's victory in the Cold War was not without painful social costs.

We should be therefore supporting a larger Europe, and in so doing we should strive to expand the zone of peace and prosperity in the world which is the necessary foundation for a stable international system in which our leadership could be fruitfully exercised.

The war of choice in Iraq could never have gained the congressional support it got without the psychological linkage between the shock of 9/11 and the postulated existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

The difference between the Bush I war against Iraq and the Bush II war against Iraq is that in the first one, we appealed to the sentiments and interests of the different groupings in the region and had them with us. In the second one, we did it on our own, on the basis of false premises, with extremely brutality and lack of political skill.

We have actually experienced in recent months a dramatic demonstration of an unprecedented intelligence failure, perhaps the most significant intelligence failure in the history of the United States.

There's something troubling about a condition in which one country alone, which has roughly 5 percent of the world's population, spends more than 50 percent of the world's defense budgets. There's something weird about it.

The congressional role in declaring war is especially important not when the United States is the victim of an attack, but when the United States is planning to wage war abroad.

Economically, we are, to some significant degree, interdependent with Chinese well-being. That is a great asset.

The legitimacy of the leadership depends on what that country thinks of its leaders.

It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam.

During the twentieth century, men fought on behalf of nationalism. Yet the wars they fought were also engendered by dislocations in world markets and by social revolution stimulated by the coming of the industrial age.

World War II and the ensuing Cold War compelled the United States to develop a sustained commitment to Western Europe and the Far East.

The costly unilateralism of the younger Bush presidency led to a decade of war in the Middle East and the derailment of American foreign policy at large.

I think it is important to ask ourselves as citizens, not as Democrats attacking the administration, but as citizens, whether a world power can really provide global leadership on the basis of fear and anxiety?

Pessimism about America's future tends to underestimate its capacity for self-renewal.

America's decline would set in motion tectonic shifts undermining the political stability of the entire Middle East.

I was deeply involved in the decision that President Jimmy Carter made to boycott the Olympics in Moscow in 1980.

You know who's messianic? Netanyahu, because he talks that way. And that's a very risky position.