Julie Nixon Eisenhower Quotes

Woe to the statesman whose reason for entering a war do not appear so plausible at its end as at its beginning.

War is much too serious a thing to be left to military men.

We wanted this war and now we've got it, and I'm not sure that we know what to do with it.

I don't believe war is a way to solve problems. I think it's wrong. I don't have respect for the people that made the decisions to go on with war. I don't have that much respect for Bush. He's about war, I'm not about war - a lot of people aren't about war.

There are two things which a democratic people will always find very difficult - to begin a war and to end it.

I believe the military should be wary of diplomacy until war is declared; then the State Department should keep its nose out and let the military do whatever is necessary to win.

If Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us anything in recent history, it is the unpredictability of war and that these things are easier to get into than to get out of, and, frankly, the facile way in which too many people talk about, 'Well, let's just go attack them.'

You could argue that war is always an irrational act, and yet many states enter into military conflict out of rational calculation or national interest or the stability or longevity of their regime.

The decision to go to war is the most important decision that I can make as a representative in Congress. As a veteran, I see any potential military action first through the eyes of the young men and women who volunteered to wear the uniform and would carry out such a mission.

War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men.

There are two things that will always be difficult for a democratic people to do: to start a war and to finish it

Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper and safe judges of whether a war ought to be commenced, continued or concluded.

No American President should ever take any option off the table.

By invading Iraq, the President has undermined the War on Terrorism.

Whenever we get involved in a war, the White House seems to have 3 priorities: We cannot appear to be losing; we must appear to be winning; we must look like we know what we are doing.

If there is going to be a war – and no one can say that there is not – we must keep him fresh to be our war Prime Minister

What I'm saying is it is our responsibility to exercise due diligence, to ask the tough questions, to get the evidence before we make those very costly decisions about how and when and where our military is used.

I don't think people realize how many decisions the president of the United States makes about military action.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, who voted for the war without knowing what she was doing, I would not have had our people in Iraq. Iraq was disaster.

What the American people want to do is fight a war without getting hurt. You can't do that any more than you can get into a barroom fight without getting hurt... Unless the American people are willing to send their sons out to fight an aggressor, there just isn't going to be any United States.

War should be the politics of last resort. And when we go to war, we should have a purpose that our people understand and support.

By Rice's own standards, the war was well underway by the time he took office. He was a war president the moment he took the oath. But did he act like one?

War is too serious a matter to leave to soldiers.

I'm just very wary that once you start military operations in any country, it's very difficult to predict what the outcome is.

First, we could have defied both of them and could have gone to war against both of these nations for this violation of international law and interference with our neutral rights.