Hillary Clinton has jeopardized. Totally jeopardized national security by putting her e-mails on a private server, all to hide her corrupt dealings.
I hope President [Hamid] Karzai understands that our national security interests don't depend entirely on his decision there whether to allow a recount. Obviously the legitimacy of that government is an important component of it. My point is it shouldn't be the lynch pin for us deciding whether we're going to protect our national security interests in that region.
At some point, deliberation begins to look more like indecisiveness which then becomes a way of emboldening our enemies and allies and causing our allies to question our resolve. So we shouldn't let one component of this determine our national security here which depends on providing an Afghanistan which denies a safe haven to terrorists as well as stabilizing Pakistan. Those are our two national security interests at stake in Afghanistan.
I'm a true reactionary. Like all patricians, I'd like to restore the original republic, which we lost 40 years ago when Harry Truman imposed the national security state on us, which has kept us at war, hot or cold, for almost half a century, and it's got us $4 trillion into debt.
Well, first let's say that the fundamental responsibility of any government is national security - in the preamble to the Constitution, provide for the common defense and insure domestic tranquility.
National security - the military is the first thing we should spend money on. You have to fully fund that first. And then you should be paying for everything else.
I am deeply worried about Donald Trump on matters of national security. He doesn't know anything himself about it, and he has appointed a national security adviser, Mike Flynn, who is a pro-Russia conspiracy theorist, and he's just put Steve Bannon, a guy with connections to white supremacy and antisemitism, onto the National Security Council.
I don't take left-right on any of my positions. I take common sense and so again, if alternative energy saves money, it creates jobs, it enhances national security, it's good for the environment - I'm trying to find who's against it, right.
The United States should.... avoid unilateral export controls and controls on technology widely available in world markets. Unilateral controls penalize U.S. exporters without advancing U.S. national security or foreign policy interests.
Republican or Democrat candidate for Presidency ought to say: I look forward to working with the president to solve the problem. People expect us to come here to solve problems. And thus far, the attitude has been: Let's just kind of ignore what the president has said and just hope somebody else comes and solves it for us. And that's what I'd be running on. I'd be running on the economy and I'd be running on national security. But since I'm not running, I can only serve as an adviser to those who are.
Issues are won based upon whether or not you can keep this economy strong; elections are won based upon economic issues and national security issues.
I do know that the effect of the tremendous cutbacks on education that we're seeing are going to create a major problem for the country if we don't provide the opportunity to a huge swath of our society. These impacts are going to have an effect across national security, it's going to have an effect across our social services, and of course on the economy, in broad terms. So there is, I think, at least a level of concern that we ought to have at this point in our history.
With what Trump is doing now, provoking North Korea, risking actual destruction of part of the US, he is violating the system's rules on its own terms. He's committing an actual threat against US national security. And you would think that in just pragmatic political terms in Washington, that is the kind of thing that could be grounds for impeachment. But as long as he sits in that chair, it's true, the commanders are obligated to obey his order.
Even though we still don't know any precise details, we're already making it clear that some proposals like a border tax or "buy-American" regulations are heading in a protectionist direction. The Americans' sudden proposal to classify certain steel products as national security-related is also something that we find highly problematic.
Most people who aspire to be president don't have a foreign policy andnational security background. The exception was certainly Hillary Clinton.
Donald Trump moves in two parallel tracks at the same time. There's the controversial political guy that's always out there with his tweets. He comes from a showbiz background, as well as a very successful career in finance and real estate. He loves sometimes the controversy more than some people - the press thinks they're totally aggravating him. He sometimes thrives on the public controversy and the hitting back. Meanwhile, he's very results-oriented. He knows that the American people are going to judge him by his performance on the economy, on jobs, on national security.
I think there are a lot of Republicans who recognize that investment in adolescent girls and empowering them is good for our foreign policy. When they're educated, they tend to give back more to their communities, to rise out of poverty in a way that is good for their families and their communities and ultimately, their countries. I think that we need to keep laying down these markers, and pointing out what's important to our national security and what's important around the world.
You don't have Republicans and Democrats behind closed doors. We have people passionate about national security behind closed doors. And I think that's the way that it should be.
Michael Flynn is the national security adviser working next to the president, so in his time that he was the national security adviser, he is working in the White House. He should have access to the information.
I worry that the weakness - particularly of our public schools - is going to make that less and less true for everybody. And if we ever lose that as our core, then we're going to lose our confidence. We're not going to lead. We're going to protect. We're going to turn inward. That would be very bad for the world. So as a former Secretary of State, I think I can advocate for education as a national security priority.
You look at Libya, and you go, "Jesus, why the hell did we do that?" That's beyond stupid. That's so irresponsible and dangerous for our national security and frankly for the national security of Europe because you go and you look at where a lot of these refugees are coming out of, they're coming out of Misrata and Tripoli.
Obama's decision to leave, to not sustain the victory that resulted after eight years of fighting, from 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, was another incredibly stupid decision. It was totally based on politics, not based on any notion of national security. It's a nightmare for our national security. And then you have the Libya intervention.
There is a lot of fiscal conservatives in the United States senate that didn't vote for that because we understand that national security spending is not the reason why we have a debt. Our debt is being driven by the way Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and, by the way, the interest on the debt is structured in the years to come.
A group of national security experts, military intelligence experts, issued a very concerning statement about Senator Bernie Sanders's views on foreign policy and national security, pointing out some of the comments he has made on these issues, such as inviting Iranian troops into Syria to try to resolve the conflict there; putting them right at the doorstep of Israel.
President Barack Obama benefits from the shared experience and wisdom of top national security and foreign policy advisers, many of them career professionals.
Follow AzQuotes on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. Every day we present the best quotes! Improve yourself, find your inspiration, share with friends
or simply: