Joe Lieberman

I believe it's the fair and right thing to do.

I have serious concerns about the impact of the repeal of the law on a force that's fully engaged in two wars.

The President has been consistently clear, that he supports repeal of this policy.

If Congress adopted a moratorium on enforcement of DADT or adopted repeal and the President signed it, that you would carry out those laws?

This is the beginning of a turn-the-momentum-against-the-Taliban operation that will presumably go from Marja in Helmand Province into Kandahar.

In light of these recent requests for Land Warrior systems, is it fair to conclude that the Army prematurely terminated this program?

We will work to find the right balance between an Army that we can afford and an Army that is able to meet the Nation's demands.

I'm grateful that the President has said he supports the repeal of DADT.

I would assume that, at least in part, those have to be coordinated or referenced.

What mattered most was not how a member of the military lived his or her private sexual life, but that they were prepared to risk their lives in defense of our country.

I opposed the DADT policy when it was created by this committee in 1993 and I remain opposed to it today.

Am I correct, just to ask the question and get it on the record, that your judgment as advised by counsel is that it requires an act of Congress repealing DADT for the actual policy itself to be ended in the military?

All options remain on the table and certainly the military is one of them.

I think this is a very good budget. Obviously, we'll go over it in a series of subject matter hearings, but I think it meets the needs of our military within the resources that we have.

There is a kind of increasing military connection in a very positive sense between ourselves and our allies there.

If Iran goes nuclear, it greatly strengthens their terrorist proxies, including some that have killed a lot of Americans in Iraq and are causing some trouble in Afghanistan.

It's good. It is with great appreciation that I accept the higher wisdom of the chairman of the committee.

I have long argued that our principal mission in Afghanistan should be training the Afghan security forces so they can take responsibility for the security of their country.

We all want to find a diplomatic way to get the Iranians not to go nuclear.

I am somewhat more optimistic than I was after my last visit in September that the fully-resourced, counterinsurgency strategy announced by President Obama is the right strategy and is starting to take hold.

I believe these are all important elements of a sound missile defense policy.

I think that's an excellent suggestion.

I think the more explicit we are about it the clearer it's going to be and the better off we're going to be.

DOD's approach to the threat of servicemembers who adopt a violent Islamist extremist ideology needs to be revised.

I think that a more focused approach, an open approach on Islamist extremism, will protect the overwhelming majority of Muslim Americans serving in the military.