It would be a huge mistake to abandon democracy promotion. Peaceful political change has been enormously successful in the past years in Eastern European countries as well as in countries like South Korea, South Africa, Chile and Indonesia. However, if possible, the use of force is something to avoid except in cases where genocide is threatened, like Bosnia or Libya or with regimes that threaten our security, like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.

Look, I think the notion that theres a dogma or doctrine of foreign policy that gives you a textbook recipe for how to react to all situations is really nonsense.

Public action should seek to expand the set of opportunities of those who have the least voice and fewest resources and capabilities.

People change their habits. I know Americans who don't go to Paris because they think it is too dangerous.

Saddam Hussein had nerve gas and used it against his own people, he had used chemical weapons against the Iranians and he almost had a nuclear bomb in 1981 and in 1991. And he had been caught with anthrax in 1995 by the UN inspections after denying that he had it.

Islamic State is mainly a direct result of the failure in Syria. That's where IS has grown. That's where IS spread from.

People seem to forget that Saddam was the only leader in the world who praised the attacks of 9/11 as a good thing.