Grover Norquist Quotes

I'm going to vote in support of the president of the United States in keeping the troops in Iraq until the president and our military is convinced that the mission is complete.

To protect America's security, we are going to have to pull America's military out of the swamp of Washington politics.

We had eight years of Barack Obama depleting our military, ignoring a lot of the threats around the world.

Clearly the American military has been a force for good for the United States. There's a reason we have a standing military. But there's something to be said for having a much smaller military because then we wouldn't be tempted to get involved in things we shouldn't be getting involved in.

The Obama presidency has seen the U.S. military's elite tactical forces increasingly used in an attempt to achieve strategic goals. But with Special Operations missions kept under tight wraps, Americans have little understanding of where their troops are deployed, what exactly they are doing, or what the consequences might be down the road.

We need a very strong military to protect the freedoms we do have.

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

I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place

I don't live under the illusion we don't need a military to protect this country.

The world relies upon, and America must rely upon, a strong military.

The No. 1 purpose of the federal government is national defense.

I’ve been calling for more troops for over two years, along with John McCain and others subsequent to my saying that.

[Barack Obama] is sending more troops [to Afghanistan], but they have also realized that we are not going to win that war through guns and tanks. We have to engage the neighbors, and it is good that there is a non-military strategy in addition to a military strategy. It is, at least, encouraging. Whether it will work or not, the jury is still put.

If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.

It makes no sense to spend $6 billion a month to go after 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

I would have troops where they’re wanted, in our bases in Kuwait. I would have a contingency in case of an international terrorist attack. Our involvement in Iraq has led us to fail to focus on the true threat, al-Qaeda in Afghanistan... It was a mistake.

The biggest budget is the military budget. For what? We're fighting two wars in very small countries that have no nuclear weapons, that have no capabilities to destroy anything. They probably couldn't even get to America.

If they listen to the military people, we probably wouldn't be having an ISIS right now.

I think the American people should know there's already strong influences toward another deployment of American troops in an open-ended commitment.

They say military have the so-called 'secret intelligence' - this amount of intelligence must be very secret, since I've never seen any intelligent military person, nor I have seen any sense in the bloody stupid wars.

President Bush has a track record of making the right decisions when it comes to national security.

But the federal government, our collective government, has responsibilities that none of these other levels of government can fulfill; and chief among these is national defense.

Bottom line: A market approach to national defense would give us a lousy national defense.

The American people have no control over what the military does. We have no say in American foreign policy.

If the Pentagon truly confined itself to providing defense, then presumably we wouldn't need a whole separate government agency to provide 'Homeland Security.'