A Quote by Marco Rubio

National security, the government is in charge of that. And you better have a president that understands the threats we [the state] face and what we have to do about it and if you can't articulate that as a candidate, you cannot be commander-in-chief.
The president of the United States is the commander in chief, and the people who work with him at the National Security Council are his arm in working with the Defense Department. And, quite frankly, they have responsibility for all of the government. We are one component of the government.
It's one of the reasons [Vladimir Putin invitation to U.S] why 50 national security officials who served in Republican information - in administrations have said that Donald [Trump] is unfit to be the commander- in-chief. It's comments like that that really worry people who understand the threats that we face.
The President, and government, will only control the militia when a part of them is in the actual service of the federal government, else, they are independent and not under the command of the president or the government. The states would control the militia, only when called out into the service of the state, and then the governor would be commander in chief where enumerated in the respective state constitution.
We have a media that goes along with the government by parroting phrases intended to provoke a certain emotional response - for example, "national security." Everyone says "national security" to the point that we now must use the term "national security." But it is not national security that they're concerned with; it is state security. And that's a key distinction.
If I'm president, I'll be a commander-in-chief, not an agitator- in-chief or a divider-in-chief, that I will lead this country in a way that will create greater security and greater safety.
I trust Hillary Clinton as president and commander in chief, but the thought of Donald Trump as commander in chief scares me to death.
As a military officer - and this is - I have lived my life in the national security realm - I don't think I could vote for Donald Trump, because, you know, for one, I'm not a fan of a president or a commander in chief wrapping his arms around any dictator. That's very important to me.
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.
We need a president who understands the first obligation of the commander-in-chief is to keep America safe. If I am elected president, we will hunt down and kill the terrorists. We will utterly destroy ISIS.
Some of the greatest national security threats we face cannot be defeated or defended by traditional military hardware, but only by greatly enhanced cyberspace warfare, including both offensive cyber-warfare and cyber-security.
The national security issues are a really good window into the character of the person that somebody wants to have as commander in chief.
I've been in a position before where a president has turned to me in the Oval Office in a difficult moment, without any pleasantries, and said, 'I'm asking you as your president and Commander in Chief to take command of the international security force in Afghanistan.' The only response can be, 'Yes, Mr. President.'
When you're the commander in chief, you're the commander in chief on day one. You don't get like a six-month grace period. The world doesn't just stop and say, well, let's wait until the president catches up before we start challenging America.
Talk about threats to national security -- how about government so big, so complicated and so unmanageable, it cant get out of its own way?
Donald Trump is great at the one-liners, but he's a chaos candidate and he'd be a chaos president. He would not be the commander in chief we need to keep our country safe.
Accountability is the essence of democracy. If people do not know what their government is doing, they cannot be truly self-governing. The national security state assumes the government secrets are too important to be shared, that only those in the know can see classified information, that only the president has all the facts, that we must simply trust that our rulers of acting in our interest.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!