It's pretty standard fare in political discourse. You misconstrue what somebody said. You isolate a statement, you lend your interpretation to it and then feign moral outrage. And Democrats have been doing it for years.

I'm going to be honest with you - I don't know a lot about Cuba's healthcare system. Is it a government-run system?

This revolution began with young people in Syria demonstrating because they wanted a future. They wanted opportunity, education, and so forth. They went out and they did it. Thugs came out and beat them up. The parents got angry that the thugs beat the kids up, and they went out and demonstrated, and they were met with bullets. They were killed. That's how this began.

George Bush sold us on going to war with Iraq based on the threat of weapons of mass destruction. But we still haven't found them.

I would rather be the candidate of the NAACP than the NRA.

If you can resolve this transition of [Bashar] Assad, that is absolutely possible, but you have to have a clarity for everybody about the way forward.

I do think that it's really important for leaders of countries to be very clear and careful in the statements they make because their words are weighed extremely carefully by other countries, and you have to create a continuity of seriousness and of credibility in order to be able to be taken seriously and get things done.