Democracy is too important to leave up to the votes of the people.

In my particular case foreign policy happens to be my hobby, my consuming interest. I had spent decades studying it.

Let me make my point about Vietnam. When the Nixon initiation came into office, there were 550,000 Americans in combat. And ending the war was not a question of turning off a television channel. And so, debating on how we got there and what judgments were made was not going to help us.

The Russian people, at least the ones I know, have pride in being a Russian. And, therefore, they want to be taken seriously in international affairs.

Most high officials leave office with the perceptions and insights with which they entered.

Competing pressures tempt one to believe that an issue deferred is a problem avoided; more often it is a crisis invited.

Well, I don't know whether it caused anguish in China, but it was not a wise way to proceed. But one has to remember that it was the first experience. And in a Republican administration, there is a conservative wing that looks at China as the last embodiment of communism, which therefore tends towards a more bellicose rhetoric anyway than I would. It's not the dominant element, but every once in a while they get a crack at public statement.