A Quote by Joe Lieberman

In fact, five years ago, after Saddam ejected the UN inspectors, John McCain and I gave up on containment and introduced the Iraqi Liberation Act, which, when it became law, made a change of regime in Baghdad official US policy. You might therefore say that, when it comes to Iraq, President Bush is just enforcing the McCain-Lieberman policy.
After spending the 1980s building up Saddam's Iraq as a counterweight to Iran, U.S. policy abruptly reversed course with his invasion of Kuwait and has since tried to cut him down to size. The policy is called 'containment,' but the question is, containment of what?
I think the problem with John Bolton is he disagrees with President Trump's foreign policy. He would be closer to John McCain's foreign policy. John Bolton still believes the Iraq war was a good idea. He still believes that regime change is a good idea. He still believes that nation-building is a good idea.
A top McCain policy adviser claimed this week that McCain's work in the Senate helped create the BlackBerry, saying, 'You're looking at the miracle that John McCain helped create.' He then handed the BlackBerry to McCain, who attempted to withdraw $20 from it.
Bush-McCain stategy in Iraq is policy to stay, not to win.
It occurs to me that John McCain is as intellectually shallow as our current President....Bush goes bumbling along, grinning and spewing moronic one-liners, as though nobody understands what a colossal failure he has been....I fear to the depth of my being that John McCain is just like him.
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.
The idea of foreign policy realism, I think, fits more neatly with President Trump. And with John McCain, the neoconservative label of let's make the world safe for democracy and we're going to topple every regime hasn't worked.
Both Presidents George Bush and Barack Obama pursued policies of regime change after 9/11 - with Bush removing al-Qaida's safe haven in Afghanistan and the sadistic anti-American dictator Saddam Hussein in Iraq - but Obama took it a step further and disregarded regional stability as a guiding factor for U.S. policy.
Earlier today, John McCain was in the news. John McCain gave his first press conference since the election. And he said, 'For a lot of people, Sarah Palin was an energizing factor during the campaign.' Unfortunately for McCain, those people are called Democrats.
So here's a question from one who believed, only a week ago, that Baghdad might just collapse and that we might wake up one morning to find the Baathist militia and the Iraqi army gone and the Americans walking down Saadun Street with their rifles over their shoulders. If the Iraqis can still hold out against such overwhelming force in Umm Qasr for four days, if they can keep fighting in Basra and Nasiriyah โ€“ the latter a city that briefly rose in revolt against Saddam's regime in 1991 โ€“ why should Saddam's forces not keep fighting in Baghdad?
We now believe it is appropriate for Saddam Hussein to be forced to change, either by the threat of war, and therefore that compels him to cooperate. If he cooperates, then the basis of changed regime policy has shifted because his regime has, in fact, changed its policy to one of cooperation. So if he cooperates, then that is different than if he does not cooperate.
The burden is on Saddam Hussein. And our policy, our national policy - not the UN policy but our national policy - is that the regime should be changed until such time as he demonstrates that it is not necessary to change the regime because the regime has changed itself.
President George H. W. Bush soon launched Operation Desert Shield, sending an enormous contingent of troops to Saudi Arabia. But once there, what exactly were they to do? Contain Iraq? Attack and liberate Kuwait? Drive on to Baghdad and depose Saddam? There was no clear consensus among foreign policy advisers or analysts.
If I were to look at foreign policy, I would say John McCain has been wrong on just about everything over the last four decades.
There was no such thing as Al Qaeda in Iraq, until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.
John McCain responded to critics who say he's too old for a sixth term by saying that his mother is 103 years old and doing well. The crazy thing is that even she is somehow younger than John McCain.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!