Jeff Sessions

It's obvious, from our perspective, they're all losing, the whole country and the region is losing, and it's sad, beyond belief.

If this endeavor of a pluralistic democratic entity in Baghdad is going to survive, it's going to require political courage and leadership.

It seems that the threat is stepping up its pace.

I think you've said that our defenses for missile defense capabilities should keep pace with the threat.

Are you willing to use the courage and determination that you're famous for to stand up for our soldiers there?

If you conclude that we need 2 to 3 times the number of prison bed spaces as I believe we do in the immediate future, and probably 5 to 10 times in the long term, will you push the bureaucracy to get moving on it?

They're entitled to the best equipment, the best strategy--that's important, a good strategy--and execution of that strategy.

A poor plan violently executed today is better than a good plan tomorrow.

I don't believe any military has ever been better equipped, better supplied than this one has.

I hope that you will utilize the leadership opportunity you have to insist that you get the support from the various agencies.

It is going to take more of his personal time than he would like.

I believe we do have a realistic chance of success in Iraq.

I think we are in a critical time. I believe the Defense Department fully understands it because their soldiers are at risk every single day.

You used that word 'reconciliation.' You used it when we were introduced to the city council that had been established in Mosul of Kurds, Christians, Shias, and Sunnis, as I recall.

But I hope that you will not hesitate to insist that you obtain in a prompt timeframe the resources, the support, whether it be electricity or water or police or jails, that you will ask for even if it means other agencies may take it…

If a resolution is not going to help you be successful, why do we need it?

I do not think there is anyone more experienced on the ground than you.

It will establish operational control of the border. Now, most people think we ought to have that now, but we haven't. We do not have operational control of the border.

Whose interest are we representing--the United States or the person who would like to come?

If there is a shortage of low-skilled labor in America, doesn't the economic reality indicate their wages will go up?

But we have got to think about drafting a comprehensive bill. Let's draft one that is comprehensive, that deals with the problems that you just raised.

Well, we have got to get beyond just that problem. We are going to treat those people that came illegally somehow in a compassionate way.

The current 'law is not adequate to prevent the immigration of criminals, nor is it sufficiently effective' to deport criminals. That is still the truth today, isn't it?

So what could we do to draft a comprehensive bill that would allow people with the family and historical connection to have a better chance, some better chance than this to enter the United States?

You said if John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan or Eugene O'Neill were trying to enter the United States today, they would have to enter illegally.