Brent Scowcroft Quotes (42 Quotes)

Saddam is a familiar dictatorial aggressor, with traditional goals for his aggression.

Many Sunnis, who are still stuck in the Saddam era mindset and believe Iraq belongs to them, are trying to prevent a new country from developing at all.

But there is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks.

But, if you believe we should go around the world overturning regimes to make little United States, I don't agree with that, because I don't think we're capable of doing that.

Saddam's ouster will not necessarily lead to the same result, since Iraq lacks democratic traditions. Democracy doesn't just consist of holding elections.

The Europeans must finally understand the incredible shock triggered by the attacks of September 11.

An idea can be as flawless as can be, but its execution will always be full of mistakes.

Europeans are familiar with terrorism and violence. We have not experienced a true conflict on our soil in a hundred years, and especially not one that involved 3,000 dead.

If Iraq were to descend into chaos, the Europeans would feel the effects just as much as we would.

The UN could help the Iraqi government get on its feet and help the United States withdraw a bit more.

But we've had fifty years of peace.

But, if you look at the Taliban in Afghanistan and the way they govern, and the Saudi regime and the way it governs, they're not very close.

Yes, Israel's our ally. But, are the Palestinians our enemy? No, they are not.

Progress is only possible if the United States and its allies work together.

It is beyond dispute that Saddam Hussein is a menace.

We must find out where the roots of terrorism lie.

You know, different people are going to react different ways. And I don't think we should be intolerable because people do things a little differently.

But figuring out Saddam Hussein was one our greatest mysteries. He marched to his own drummer and frequently as this unfolded he made decisions which were sometimes inexplicable to us and sometimes didn't look very smart.

After all, we didn't bring democracy to Germany in 1945; Hitler destroyed democracy there first.

Only very gradually did we understand that we - like any other country - have clearly defined national interests.

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.

Simply killing everyone who is already a terrorist today won't solve the problem.

America has never seen itself as a national state like all others, but rather as an experiment in human freedom and democracy.

compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein had acquired nuclear-weapons capability.

I think a different first strike by the United States might have stopped what is going on now, but I think he may be getting the word,

We're in a hurry. Our domestic political clock is ticking, ... But you can't do this in a hurry-that's the dilemma.

After the IranIraq war, Iraq had enormous reconstruction, issues and it was our hope that American business would be able to participate in that since Iraq is fundamentally a wealthy nation.

The Iraqi elections were an important first step.

I'm afraid that the United States is more isolated today than at any other time in my memory.

Should you or any member of your staff require additional information concerning this matter, an oral briefing will be arranged for you at your convenience,

First of all, I think the Saudis are deeply concerned about the collapse of negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians and the resumption of conflict.

The policy of detente with the Soviet Union, which was begun by President Nixon in 1972, was broadly seen by 1975 in bad shape, if not in tatters. In other words, were able to take advantage of the relaxed atmosphere to pursue the same goals they had.

Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them.

The radical elements in Islam are very dangerous.

Osama bin Laden is going after us to get us out of the region, so he can deal with the regimes that he sees in the region, or replace them with purists.

To sum up, the position we took was that since we didn't know the internal situation in Iraq nor Saddam Hussein, that our best bet was to take counsel from the people who did know him and who did deal with him.

I can't think of a single case where a bombing campaign alone has made a foreign leader change his mind,

A number of presidents since Nixon have come to office with negative views of the Chinese. They always end up supporting the thrust of the policy established by President Nixon.

We're not fighting Islam, or any particular form of Islam. We're fighting terrorism.

My point was that removing Saddam should not have been our highest priority. Fighting terrorism should have been our number one concern, followed by the Palestinian peace process.

So far the changes in the president in his second term have been mainly of a rhetorical nature.

The Iraqis need help establishing a government. We have to provide them with security.