Lindsey Graham

Now the Gates Foundation and ONE and other organizations, they are doing things apart from the U.S. Government. Is that correct?

I just want to echo what Senator Leahy said.

I really believe that would be a mistake.

The idea of trying to arm the opposition forces needs to be considered, very much considered. And at the end of the day, what happens in Syria really can change the course of the Mideast and I do hope we can break them away from Iran.

Would be the best way to negotiate with the Taliban saying you are never going to take this country back over militarily. You need to get involved in the political system.

Congress is about to introduce a resolution that says containment of a nuclear-capable Iran is not a good national security strategy.

In many ways, America would go blind in terms of intelligence gathering.

Would you say it would result in destroying the ability of the Intelligence Community to adequately defend this country?

The bottom line is if we have an American military presence post 2014 at the request of the Afghan Government and people that would allow a CT capability, American air power, that would always give the edge to the Afghan security forces…

The likelihood of a terrorist organization being able to access nuclear materials in the hands of the Iranian ayatollahs would be greater, not less.

Do you think they are trying to develop a nuclear weapon? Do you think that is their goal?

I am very convinced that they are going down the road of developing a nuclear weapon.

Would you agree with me that if America ever needed a smart intelligence network, it is now?

Do you also believe that all options should remain on the table when it comes to stopping them from getting a nuclear capability?

I think it was mentioned that the intelligence budget is wrapped up in the DOD budget.

Is it fair to say from the Air Force side if you were asked to take the Iranian air force down, that it is well within our capabilities?

But somebody needs to be, and maybe that's what we're all up here for, is to try to find out the long run and not create budget crises that really make short-term decisions that are not long-term smart.

I just envision more drones, fewer manned aircraft when it comes to surveillance, because the cost of losing a pilot in a war is a lot different than it is losing a drone.

But my question is about their air force. Their air force would not fly long and it would not fly far; do you agree with that, in a fight with the United States?

I just find that hard to believe. The U-2 is a great platform and great crews and maintainers, but I just can't believe that a manned aircraft can do all the things that these drones are capable of doing for the next 25 or 30 years.

I guess my concern is that the lessons learned from the last 10 years is you can't go to war without the Guard and Reserve.

Maybe we should be thinking about are these requirements too severe, given the threats that we face and all the good programs are at risk.

Shouldn't we have a hearing one day, Mr. Chairman, about how a system competitively bid could be so overrun with costs and find out where the problem lies?

I feel like what he did was in the best interest of our troops.

If President Karzai continues to insist on us turning over 3,044 law-of-war prisoners that we hold at Parwan prison humanely, a great center of intelligence gathering, if he insists turning those prisoners over to an Afghan legal system…