Quote

So we have a group within the office that is devoted to support for the war fighter. That's, of necessity, an operational and tactical level of concern.

I've been a soldier too long to refuse to entertain any request from a potential commander in chief.

Of course, I think it is legitimate for the Commander-in-Chief to be concerned for the safety of his soldiers.

But if you're going to go out on a military unit, you've got to allow yourself to be under the control of the commander because you really could put the troops in danger.

I would adopt a standpoint, irrespective of whether someone was for or against it, if I felt deeply that it was right for the movement.

An apology for the actions of some troops who, of course, are not representative of the majority of the armed forces here, I think that would have been useful and it would have helped to some extent.

When the commander-in-chief sends Americans to fight and die, it should be only to protect our vital national interests, not for his own personal, political gain.

There are a lot of self-imposed restrictions by people who somehow believe they have to fall in with a certain military cant. There was always a sense that we had to put things into words that would touch our troops' hearts, not just their heads.

My duty to the army and to the republic whose battles we were waging forbade me assuming a position of seeming hostility to any portion of the brave men under my command.

In politics, it seems, retreat is honorable if dictated by military considerations and shameful if even suggested for ethical reasons.