Liz Cheney Quotes

We're in danger of breaking our army and preventing our national leaders from having the flexibility to confront not just Iraq and Afghanistan, but crises around the globe.

For nearly 7 decades United States has been the anchor of global security. This is meant more than forging international agreements. It has meant enforcing them.

Keep America strong. Strong in our values, strong in our economy, and strong in our military might. We hope to never have to use our military strength, but the world counts on a strong America to keep the worst actors from doing the worst things.

Our safety at home and the cause of freedom abroad is largely contingent upon our success in Iraq.

Let's remember, the CIA's job is to go out and create wars.

The crises in North Korea, Iran, the Middle East, show how quickly things can change and how they can go wrong. We must be prepared. And right now the Army is not.

War on terrorism defines the central preoccupation of the United States in the world today, and it does reflect in my view a rather narrow and extremist vision of foreign policy of the world's first superpower, of a great democracy, with genuinely idealistic traditions.

So I think that our foreign policy, the president's strong and principled leadership when it comes to the war against terror and foreign policy is going to be an asset.

Every day as Chancellor I see alerts telling me of risks around the world.

It's not the job of the U.S. military to do nation-building or produce democratic utopias.

Mistakes, after all, are endemic to foreign and military policy given the unpredictability of events and the difficulty of securing reliable information in a place like Iraq.

I used to have a little saying I used when people said, 'What are your priorities?' I'd give them a bit of government alphabet soup. I'd say 'CTCPROW: Counterterrorism, counterproliferation, rest of the world.'

Global security can be formed or threatened by heads of state whose wisdom, folly and obsessions shape global events. But often it is the security practitioners, those rarely in the headlines but whose craft and energy quietly break new ground, who keep us safe or put us in peril.

You should never take military intervention off the table. When you do so, you give an out to a rogue nation or rogue actors.

When you decide to get involved in a military operation in a place like Syria, you've got to be prepared, as we learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, to become the government, and I'm not sure any country, either the United States or I don't hear of anyone else, who's willing to take on that responsibility.

Our safety requires a long-term military presence in the Middle East because that's where the plans to attack us are emanating.

We have to make sure that we are a force for peace and stability in the world, and that we're prepared to defend freedom and the security of the American people.

Do we really want a world in which every country feels entitled to attack any other that might someday threaten it?

Strong nations co-operate to the harmony and wealth of the world. Weak nations are a perpetual cause of disturbances and perils.

The main challenge for American foreign policy in many places is not to influence relations between states but rather to influence events within states.

The main aim of any American President is to prevent World War III.

Our country is being bled daily in an effort to create a democracy in a place where it never existed.

Nations unfortunately have to be prepared for security problems that arise from symbolic and irrational behavior…

The next time some neocon, demanding whatever military intervention neocons are demanding that day, invokes Hitler or Munich or appeasement, lock up your silver.

Preemption, democracy promoting and nation building have all been sullied by association by association with the War in Iraq.