A Quote by Michael T. Flynn

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.
National security is a really big problem for journalists, because no journalist worth his salt wants to endanger the national security, but the law talks about anyone who endangers the security of the United States is going to go to jail. So, here you are, especially in the Pentagon. Some guy tells you something. He says that's a national security matter. Well, you're supposed to tremble and get scared and it never, almost never means the security of the national government. More likely to mean the security or the personal happiness of the guy who is telling you something.
I'm not saying Cubans don't deserve asylum, but if it is a national security issue, there are people who are coming from Cuba on hijacked airplanes. Why isn't that a national security issue?
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.
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.
Do not compromise on national security for purely budgetary reasons. The world is dangerous, and we must always be prepared for anything that might threaten our national interests and security.
The 'Scowcroft Model' recognizes - and embraces - the unique but necessarily modest place the National Security Council and the national security adviser occupy in the American national security architecture.
If this [national Democratic Party] is a national party, sushi is our national dish. Today, our national Democratic leaders look south and say, "I see one-third of a nation and it can go to hell."
The National Security Act of 1947 - which established the National Security Council - laid the foundation for a deliberate, multitiered process, managed by the national security adviser, to bring government agencies together to debate and decide policy.
I reserve the right to survey the national political landscape for candidates at all levels who reflect a proper understanding of our national security, economic security, and family security - the ideals of social conservation, the heart and strength of our country.
The No. 1 issue with women in this country is jobs, and the No. 2 issue is our national security. So, economic security, national security and retirement security.
I think to leave Europe would be a threat on the one hand to our economic security and on the other our national security.
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.
Those who devise better methods of utilizing manpower, tools, machinery, materials and facilities are making real contributions toward our national security. Today, these ideas are a form of insurance for our national security; tomorrow, this same progressive thinking is insurance for our individual security-it is, in effect, job insurance.
National security needs to be priority number one and if you're willing to play politics with our national security then you have no business serving in the Senate or the House.
With the new Russia allegations coming to the fore once again, the conclusion of the intelligence agencies, we've got to have those [Donald Trump's] taxes to evaluate whether these conflicts go to the heart of our most pressing national security interests.
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.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!