Any time you have a situation in which you are calling for more time rather than calling for Iraq to immediately comply, it plays into the hands of Saddam Hussein.
But I want to just caution, it is not incumbent on the United States to prove that Saddam Hussein is trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. He's already demonstrated that he's trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
But the truth of the matter is, we're an open society, we want to remain an open society, and there will continue to be vulnerability. That's why we have to meet the threats when they are not yet taking place on our territory and on our soil.
Does anybody think these people were just sitting around drinking tea?
I believe the title was 'Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the United States.'
I don't think anybody can take the word of Saddam Hussein and his regime, and certainly an American president and allies who are obligated to worry about the safety and security of our countries, cannot take the word of this dictator, who lies, pathologically lies.
If we wait until that blackmail includes the ability to blackmail with a nuclear weapon, we will have made a grave mistake.
It has been, after all, 11 years, more than a decade now, of defiance of U.N. resolutions by Saddam Hussein. Every obligation that he signed onto after the Gulf War, so that he would not be a threat to peace and security, he has ignored and flaunted.
It is high time that the international community tell Saddam Hussein and his regime that this is not an issue of negotiation with the U.N. about obligations that they undertook in 1991.
Let's remember that in 1998 when things came to a head with the Iraqi regime about their treatment of inspectors, the United States Congress overwhelmingly passed a law called the Iraqi Liberation Act that said Saddam Hussein's regime is a threat to peace and stability and ought to be removed.
Military history has swung back and forth between advantage to the offence and advantage to the defence. When the offence has the advantage, then a new technology will come along that will temporarily give the defence the advantage and vice versa. Football has that kind of pattern, too.
Now, al Qaeda's on the run. Afghanistan is no longer a base of operations. The Afghan government is a friendly government that is trying to bring democracy to its people.
Our policies toward Iraq simply are to protect the region and to protect Iraq's people and neighbors.
Power matters. But there can be no absence of moral content in American foreign policy, and furthermore, the American people wouldn't accept such an absence. Europeans giggle at this and say we're naive and so on, but we're not Europeans, we're Americans - and we have different principles.
Punish France, ignore Germany, and forgive Russia.
So I think, if September 11 taught us anything, it taught us that we're vulnerable, and vulnerable in ways that we didn't fully understand.
Success is not assured, but America is resolute: this is the best chance for peace we are likely to see for some years to come - and we are acting to help Israelis and Palestinians seize this chance.
The people of the Middle East share the desire for freedom. We have an opportunity - and an obligation - to help them turn this desire into reality.
The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly Saddam can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
The United Nations charter actually has teeth, and Article VII does permit that there can be necessary means taken.
The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid.
There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a danger to the United States and to its allies, to our interests.
There was no silver bullet that could have prevented the 11 September attacks. There was nothing demonstrating or showing that something was coming in the United States. If there had been something, we would have acted on it.
There's no doubt that it's still a dangerous place, Afghanistan. The fortunate thing is that the United States was helping to provide security for Chairman Karzai. And it shows that the United States is committed to that regime.
We are at war, and our security as a nation depends on winning that war.
We know that there are unaccounted-for Scud and other ballistic missiles in Iraq. And part of the problem is that, since 1998, there has been no way to even get minimal information about those programs except through intelligence means.
We need a common enemy to unite us.
We needed to go back on the offense and offer clear leadership on Iraq.
We will continue to work together in our common fight against terror.
We're in a new world. We're in a world in which the possibility of terrorism, married up with technology, could make us very, very sorry that we didn't act.
We've been a country that's been fortunate to be protected by two oceans, to not have serious attacks on our territory for most of our history. And we were unfortunately reminded in a very devastating way of our vulnerability.
Well, I'd very interested to know how one can dismiss a weapons of mass destruction program that was well documented before 1991, when the inspectors actually arrived, what they found in 1991; that was being documented until 1998 when the inspectors left; that continues to gather momentum.
Well, there's been plenty of ultimatums, and one thing that we better be very clear is that we can't continue to have the kind of defiance of the United Nations, the defiance of the international community that we've had.
What we're hearing from everyone is that they understand that Saddam Hussein is a threat. They understand that he's been a threat for a long time.
She has a Ph.D in political science from the Graduate School of International Studies at Denver.
She has been in Time magazine's list of the worlds 100 most influential people three times. They were; 2004,2005 and 2006. The only woman to be in the list more times than her is talk show host Oprah Winfrey who holds the record alongside Bill Gates, entrepeuner, for appearing in the list four times.
She studied at a course on international politics at the University of Denver which was taught by Joseph Korbel, the father of to-be United States Secertary of State Madeleine Albright.
Condoleezza is an avid reader of the Russian authors, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky.
By the end of 2005, she had travelled 240,261 miles, visited 49 countries, and spent over 500 hours in flight.
She has been awarded honorary doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, the University of Notre Dame in 1995, the Mississippi College School of Law in 2003, the University of Louisville, Michigan State University in 2004, and Boston College Law School in 2006.
She speaks fluent English and Russian and has basic knowledge of German, French and Spanish.
Her name, Condoleezza, is derived from the Italian musical expression, Con dolcezza, which, in musical terms means "with sweetness".
She is the second woman to serve as U.S. Secretary of State the first being Madeleine Albright who served from 1997-2001 under Bill Clinton.
She is the first African American women to become U.S Secretary of State.
You can share a link to this page with your friend!