The first Iraq War was one of necessity because vital U.S. interests were at stake, and we reached the point where no other national-security instruments were likely to achieve the necessary goal, which was the reversal of Saddam Hussein's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

White House staff are meant to coordinate and set policy, not carry it out.

If anything, what happened in Iraq after the fall of Saddam set back prospects for democratic reform in the region, as many came to associate political change with chaos.

If you assume away most or all of the questions or difficulties, you can persuade yourself of just about anything.

On occasion, terrorists will succeed despite our best efforts. That is part of the legacy of 9/11. But 9/11 also shows us that while terrorists can destroy, they are unable to create.

America must reduce its fiscal deficit, modernize its infrastructure, and improve its schools.

Foreign policy must be about priorities. The United States cannot do everything everywhere.

I did not support the U.S. decision to intervene with military force in Libya. The evidence was not persuasive that a large-scale massacre or genocide was either likely or imminent. Policies other than military intervention were never given a full chance.

Dissent is as American as cherry pie.

There is no getting around the reality that the second Iraq war was a war of choice; had it been carried out differently, it still would have been an expensive choice and almost certainly a bad one.

The decision to attack Iraq in March 2003 was discretionary; it was a war of choice.

The United States emerged from the Cold War with unprecedented absolute and relative power. It was truly first among unequals.

Weapons of mass destruction - nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons - are just that, and no cause can excuse their use.

The benefits of freer trade, such as job creation, lower inflation, and greater consumer choice, are often invisible or only partly visible.

Russian membership in the World Trade Organization has the potential to strengthen the rule of law, combat corruption, and give Russia a stake in better relations with the outside world.

In a global world, what happens within one country can all too easily affect others.

It is neither feasible nor desirable for Europe to establish itself as a geopolitical equal or competitor of the U.S.

Americans, for their part, must accept that a strong Europe will not be content to simply do America's bidding.

No country can succeed if it denies itself the talents of half of its people.

History shows that societies where opportunity is safeguarded tend to be societies that are good international citizens.

Security is the absolute precondition for sustainable recovery from conflict; without it, people cannot rebuild their country or return to school or work.

Americans never would alter the way entitlement programs are funded or education administered without serious study and widespread debate.

Paradigm shifts, particularly in diplomacy and security issues, are, by definition, major undertakings.

The United States is not just another country. It has more capacity and potential to influence the world than any other country - and no other country has the resources and mindset to lead a world that is not on autopilot.