Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war--particularly unilaterally--unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction pursuant to the United Nations resolution.

I think as we celebrate the 70th anniversary of the UN, it's a good moment to rekindle our efforts to make multilateralism work yet again. And I'm proud to say that in the Iran agreement I think we did show that it can work.

I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.

[Bashar] Assad has made a series of choices ever since then that is literally destroying his country.

If we don't go far enough fast enough, the damage we inflict could take centuries to undo - if it can be undone at all.

Let me just say you could end this violence within a very short period of time, have a complete ceasefire - which Iran could control, which Russia could control, which Syria could control, and which we and our coalition friends could control - if one man would merely make it known to the world that he doesn't have to be part of the long-term future; he'll help manage Syria out of this mess and then go off into the sunset, as most people do after a period of public life. If he were to do that, then you could stop the violence and quickly move to management.

It's the [George Bush] president's fiscal policies that have driven up the biggest deficits in American history. He's added more debt to the debt of the United States in four years than all the way from George Washington to Ronald Reagan put together.