Angus King

The only thing worse than nuclear weapons is not having them and have other people have them and use them

As long as those nuclear weapons exist, we need to maintain a capability to deter their possible use against the United States or our friends and allies across the world.

I wonder if it isn't time to stop and say, do we need a new strategy other than trying to just kill our enemies as they arise?

I think you've helped to create an institution that will serve this country well for some period of time.

A tidal wave of death is what we're talking about.

I think we should know that and it should be publicity and we should name and shame those companies--those countries, because this is entirely unacceptable.

It's pretty disappointing that...

I would suggest that we have to.

So, selection of leaders is a crucial element, looking for innovative and willingness to move.

The lack of capacity to deal with drug imports, it seems to me, is something that is a real strategic and tactical challenge.

I'm afraid that the Syrian refugee crisis is a precursor of a larger refugee crisis that we could be facing over the next 10 to 20 years.

Absolutely, and I think that is what has to be part of the discussion, because if the utilities insist on fighting and trying to overprice their storage, people are just going to say: I am going to buy my own storage, put it in the…

I would hope that, in your final recommendations as you're--in your exit interview, if you will--that you would emphasize the importance of that.

What I'm trying to say--just as Senator McCain said, it isn't about numbers; it is about the capability.

Any military leader would want to keep all the advantage to him, not provide any advantage to the enemy.

Does it make any sense to announce to an enemy that you're going to reduce your--not only your troop level, but your mission?

Isn't it true that in order to go to the 5,500, which is a fundamental change of mission?

I can't understand any good reason to announce in advance to an enemy that you're going to reduce your troop levels.

I almost objected, not because of any reservations about General Nicholson, but about my extreme admiration for you.

I wish they would do it.

I think we are undercutting our own national interests by not being at the table.

Have you done any analysis of the economic effect of people being freed from their employer based health insurance and, therefore, able to begin their own businesses, for example?

I think that is an important point, because there was a lot of talk at the time that CBO says ACA will cost 2 million jobs, and that is really not accurate.

As I read it, though, what you really found was it was the labor supply that you were analyzing, not people losing their jobs but people choosing not to stay in a particular job because they could have health insurance.

My only concern as a policymaker is that we not be seduced by the rosy projections that never manifest themselves.