We did not go to war in Afghanistan or in Iraq to quote 'impose democracy.' We went to war in both places because we saw those regimes as a threat to the United States.

Sometimes overturning brutal regimes takes time and costs lives. I wish it weren't so. I really really do.

Advances in the technology of telecommunications have proved an unambiguous threat to totalitarian regimes everywhere.

The real point is that totalitarian regimes have claimed jurisdiction over the whole person and the whole society and they don't at all believe that we should give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.

Where defining foreign policy as 'ethical' went wrong was that it implied that all decisions would be exclusive in every respect of any dealings with unethical regimes.

Disappointment over nationalistic authoritarian regimes may have contributed to the fact that today religion offers a new and subjectively more convincing language for old political orientations.

There is an absolutely fundamental hostility on the part of totalitarian regimes toward religion.

There is also poetry written to be shouted in a square in front of an enthusiastic crowd. This occurs especially in countries where authoritarian regimes are in power.

The effort to blur the lines between Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib reflects a deep misunderstanding about the different legal regimes that apply to Iraq and the war against al Qaeda.

What can we put into the hands of people under oppressive regimes to help them? For me a big part of it is information knowledge - the ability to defeat propaganda by understanding it.