Lindsey Graham

We have said that it is the Nation's policy that Assad must go.

Do you agree with me that it would be a wise investment to keep the Afghan army at 352,000 at least for a few more years rather than draw them down to 232,000?

All the problems that we have, however important, will be dwarfed by this messianistic, apocalyptic, extreme regime that would have an atomic bomb.

The United States should ratchet up the sanctions and make it clear to Iran that they will not get away with it, and if sanctions do not work, then they have to know that you will be prepared--us, the United States--to take military action.

It would be damaging and not do it.

Meanwhile, the International Atomic Energy Agency has reported that Iran continues to increase and improve its uranium enrichment activities, causing concerns over the potential military dimensions of its nuclear program.

Iran also continues improving the lethality and accuracy of its ballistic missiles and conducts military exercises with the stated purpose of closing the Strait of Hormuz, threatening not only its neighbors but also the global economy.

Yes. Iran's actions in the Arabian Gulf, of late, have been more aggressive as Tehran attempts to assert territorial claims that exceed internationally recognized limits.

I believe we're at a pivotal moment in the war in Afghanistan.

NATO will not stay, in any numbers, if we have 1,000 troops.

I want to end it well. Like Senator Levin, I think we can be successful in Afghanistan.

I want to find out what's the proper role of this committee in divulging information, because I really do believe we have a right to know what commanders are recommending.

The one thing that is foremost in my mind is that if their leadership is unable to transfer power in a peaceful manner, that would create conditions that would cause us to, perhaps, revert to sectarian behavior.

I believe that because of all of the great work that our young men and women continue to do on a daily basis and the commitment of this entire country to accomplishing that in the right way.

If it becomes unstable and ungoverned, it opens the area, potentially, for terrorists, in order to allow Iraq to become a place where terrorism could be exported.

We were one perceived slight or insult away from these guys shooting each other, and we need to have a follow-on force to keep tensions low.

I think we're on the 10 yardline, and I think that the next 18 months will determine whether we get to the goal line.

The cascading effect of the numbers being reduced were not the Iraqis saying, 'We can't have all that many troops,' it was that our own White House was saying, 'We just don't agree with the commander's recommendation.'

I wouldn't have one troop in Afghanistan or Iraq without a status of forces agreement, that he was absolutely right to insist on that.

It is in our national security interest to continue pressure on al Qaeda wherever we find them either by ourselves or through partners.

I think it is no accident that the troops are coming home 2 months before this election in Afghanistan.

You do not think there are any politics going on on our side?

If it were up to the Kurds, there would be 50,000 American troops in Kurdistan.

If neighboring countries see that Iraq is weak and incapable of protecting its border and internal security, then definitely there will be interference.

I completely concur with the idea that American troops should not be left behind in Iraq without legal protections.