A Quote by David Ignatius

Journalists couldn't do their jobs overseas without taking risks, and the same is true for diplomats and intelligence officers. — © David Ignatius
Journalists couldn't do their jobs overseas without taking risks, and the same is true for diplomats and intelligence officers.
The NSC staff should not, as it has in the past, duplicate the work of military officers, diplomats or intelligence officers.
Without a doubt, the most fiscally responsible way to increase the number of officers on our streets is to mobilize uniformed officers in administrative jobs and to use civilian employees to fill those jobs.
One of the great things about the United States is that when it comes to world affairs, the president obviously is the leader of the Executive Branch, the Commander-in-Chief, the spokesperson for the nation, but the influence and the work that we have is the result not just of the president, it is the result of countless interactions and arrangements and relationships between our military and other militaries, and our diplomats and other diplomats, the intelligence officers and development workers.
Is it possible to have an endless series of successes without falling on our faces? I suppose it is, but I think it would entail doing the same things over and over again without taking chances, without taking risks or exploring our limits, without finding out what we can and can't do.
On Earth, men and women are taking the same risks. Why shouldn't we be taking the same risks in space?
Mitt Romney is familiar with jobs being shipped overseas because he invested in companies that were shipping jobs overseas.
Most people that take jobs as police officers are taking them because they're good jobs. Many who go into these jobs are doing it because it's good work.
Police officers know that each time they put on their uniform, they are taking on risks to protect others.
Even though intense focus on Iran's nuclear program has presumably increased the volume of intelligence gathered about it, it remains true that intelligence officers tend to rely heavily on a few trusted sources.
To be sure, police do a dangerous job and take tremendous personal risks to safeguard the public. Most officers just want to do their jobs and go home alive.
The irony is that the person not taking risks feels the same amount of fear as the person who regularly takes risks.
Because poets feel what we're afraid to feel, venture where we're reluctant to go, we learn from their journeys without taking the same dramatic risks.
One doesn't accept bad challenges. Part of it is always the risk-taking without seeing that the risks are rational and the rewards are commensurate.. are more than commensurate.. with the risks.
Somehow, AI is playing an important role of breaking up the ice of complacency. We have a comfortable life, we just don't want to take risks. AI is threatening too many comfortable jobs to make people think about taking risks again.
If someone is always to blame, if every time something goes wrong someone has to be punished, people quickly stop taking risks. Without risks, there can't be breakthroughs.
People say, 'Oh, you're doing the job of journalists.' I think it's very important to note that we can't do our job without journalists. Journalists can do their job without late-night comedians. They'd be just fine without us. But we, of course, use their work every day to build our pieces.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!