So do I. Terror is the----
current policy is growing the insurgency, not diminishing it.
The question I asked you is, what are you going to do? Why have we rebuffed the efforts of others to be involved--
I want to have happen what you just described.
I wish we could have translated your pride into some votes, but thank you, anyway.
There have been a series of offers here, and we keep, sort of, making this decision to go it alone.
I don't understand how the administration can choose to spend--now we're going to be close to $300 billion in Iraq to disarm weapons that we...
I mean, we secured more nuclear fissionable material in the two years prior to 9/11 than we did in the two years after 9/11.
With the same amount of money. It didn't add a cent.
I believe that could be done in three or four years.
I have reservations. And they are not personal in any way whatsoever.
The only question is why it's not happening at a pace that maximizes the capacity for success and minimizes the potential of disaster.
Your answer disturbed me.
But they are very different in a lot of ways, and that is what concerns a lot of people who are struggling with this now.
I answered, nuclear proliferation, globally, and the President agreed.
Global diplomacy, as you know well, is defined by the issues that a President of the United States chooses to publicly put on the table.
No threat has been greater to us, according to, I think, everybody, than the potential of a 'dirty bomb'.
You've allowed summit after summit with Russian President Putin to go by without any action.
