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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

We must find out where the roots of terrorism lie.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

The Iraqi elections were an important first step.

It is beyond dispute that Saddam Hussein is a menace.

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 radical elements in Islam are very dangerous.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

The art of diplomacy is to take an opportunity and turn it into something.

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

While we have made great progress in increasing funding for veterans' benefits, we still have a long way to go in fully meeting the promise to our veterans.

Had the Hebrews not been disturbed in their progress a thousand and more years ago, they would have solved all the great problems of civilization which are being solved now under all the difficulties imposed by the spirit of the Middle Ages.

Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards.

There is sometimes a peculiar confusion in the West that equates progress to whatever is recent or whatever is new, and it is time we understood that progress has nothing to do with the chronology of an idea.

From the very commencement the student should set out to witness the progress and effects of sickness and ought to persevere in the daily observation of disease during the whole period of his studies.

But most Canadians have recognized to a greater or lesser extent that despite much of the so-called progress of the affluent society, essential ingredients to a meaningful life seem to be either entirely lacking, or at best, difficult to grasp.

We have stabilized our economy. We took over a very sick economy, and we were hemorrhaging 750,000 jobs a month. We have stopped the hemorrhaging. In fact, we had 140,000 job growth last month. And that's what I call progress.

The brutalities of progress are called revolutions. When they are over we realize this: that the human race has been roughly handled, but that it has advanced.

Disapproval is a very important factor in all progress. There has really never been any progress without it.

Yearning for the seemingly impossible is the path to human progress.

The exact measure of the progress of civilization is the degree in which the intelligence of the common mind has prevailed over wealth and brute force.

Progress is measured by richness and intensity of experience - by a wider and deeper apprehension of the significance and scope of human existence.

Why is it so painful to watch a person sink? Because there is something unnatural in it, for nature demands personal progress, evolution, and every backward step means wasted energy.

This seems to be the law of progress in everything we do; it moves along a spiral rather than a perpendicular; we seem to be actually going out of the way, and yet it turns out that we were really moving upward all the time.

I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its Churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.

Life with a scientist who is often changing jobs and is frequently away at meetings and on lecture tours is not easy. Without a secure home base, I could not have made much progress.

In the usual progress of things, the necessities of a nation in every stage of its existence will be found at least equal to its resources.