You can't be involved in healthcare without being involved in the battle against AIDS.
Paul Wolfowitz
I like globalization; I want to say it works, but it is hard to say that when six hundred million people are slipping backwards.
We don't start a job that we can't finish... that's the American way.
I'm not sure the oil producers are enjoying real growth. That troubles me. For experience has shown that oil can be more of a curse than a blessing. And not only in Africa.
Part of what is wrong with the view of American imperialism is that it is antithetical to our interests. We are better off when people are governing themselves. I'm sure there is some guy that will tell you that philosophy is no different from the Roman Empire's. Well, it is fundamentally different.
I think one has to say it's not just simply a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism. And that's why it has to be a broad and sustained campaign.
One of the things that ultimately led me to leave mathematics and go into political science was thinking I could prevent nuclear war.
Jobs are a priority for every country. Doing more to improve regulation and help entrepreneurs is the key to creating jobs - and more growth.
I can't predict the future.
Support for peaceful reform by the people themselves is the right way to promote democracy, not the use of force.
It's wonderful that so many people want to contribute to fighting aids or malaria. But, if somebody isn't paying attention to the overall health system in the country, a whole lot of money can be wasted.
It's a very bad thing when people exterminate other people, and people persecute minorities.
The most striking thing is that even before Osama bin Laden was killed, he seemed largely irrelevant to the Arab Spring.
I mean, we're going to probably debate the Iraq war for at least as long as I'm alive.
Sometimes corruption is slowed by shedding light into what was previously shadowed.
We did not go to war in Afghanistan or in Iraq to, quote, 'impose democracy.' We went to war in both places because we saw those regimes as a threat to the United States.
I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq. Those who want to come and help are welcome. Those who come to interfere and destroy are not.
Public action should seek to expand the set of opportunities of those who have the least voice and fewest resources and capabilities.
I've met quite a few dictators up close and personal in my life.
I certainly don't like a label that suggests I believe that the military is the solution to most of the world's problems.
Poles understand perhaps better than anyone the consequences of making toothless warnings to brutal tyrants and terrorist regimes.
That sense of what happened in Europe in World War II has shaped a lot of my views.
I told my father I had to try political science for a year. He thought I was throwing my life away.
I think, in the longer view of things, there is a very powerful pull in the direction of participatory government.
If greater openness is a key to economic success, I believe there is increasingly a need for openness in the political sphere as well.
For the private sector to flourish, special privilege must give way to equal opportunity and equal risk for all.
The cost of the high-cost economy remains too high.
Look, I think the public generally understands that what's at stake in Afghanistan is American security, number one.
I think it's a mistake to rely too much on any one economic factor. It's why investors try to spread their portfolio round.
No one argues that we should have imposed a dictatorship in Afghanistan having liberated the country. Similarly, we weren't about to impose a dictatorship in Iraq having liberated the country.
The absence of Saddam is a huge weight off the Arab world.
Democracy is a process.
I'm constantly asking for alternative views on most things that come to me.
For one thing I tend not to see myself in various moulds that people fit me into.
I think that all countries that participate in multilateral institutions see the institutions as a way of advancing what they view as their national interests and they see in many cases multi-lateral institution as the best way to do that.
It is kind of nice to have a common purpose.
I have always had a tendency to keep enlarging problems which I personally think is the way the world works... that seeing anything one dimensionally on the kinds of political, sort of big issues of human progress is going to be a distorted view of things, which is why over my career I have gone seemingly from subject to subject to subject.
Generally speaking, the stronger the connection between the financing and the ultimate beneficiary, the better the result.
Before September 11, terrorism was viewed as something ugly but you lived with it.
The internal affairs of other countries has a big impact on American interests.
Look, I think the notion that there's a dogma or doctrine of foreign policy that gives you a textbook recipe for how to react to all situations is really nonsense.
The American people are pretty impressive in their ability to keep after something if they think it is doable.
You can't win if you're chasing the wrong problem.
The use of force to liberate people is very different from the use of force to suppress or control them, or even to defeat them.
Someone once said that history has more imagination than all the scenario writers in the Pentagon, and we have a lot of scenario writers here. No one ever wrote a scenario for commercial airliners crashing into the World Trade Center.
China, in the future, is going to have even more nuclear capability than it has had in the past. I don't believe that they have anything to fear from the United States, and I frankly don't believe they do fear the United States.
History is just littered with problems that were solved that were supposed to be impossible.
