Three of the four leading Republican Party presidential candidates
have made statements implying (but never clearly stating) that they
would support a military attack by Israel on Iran. The only exception
is Ron Paul who unrealistically states that he would end ALL foreign
aid of any kind if elected.
Gary Johnson was a Republican Party candidate for US President. In
spite of being first to declare and in spite of campaigning hard, he
never got much support so he has switched from being a Republican
Party Candidate to being a Libertarian Party Candidate.
One big difference between Libertarians and Republicans is that
Libertarians are opposed to US involvement in foreign wars, whereas in
recent years the Republican Party has been the "War Party". Every
recent Republican President has attacked other countries.
So, I have been searching to find out whether Gary Johnson is any
different from the others. Is he a virgin or is he no different from
the other girls?
The Prime Minister of Israel is right now seeking US approval in
advance for an attack by Israel on Iran. I can think of no time in US
history where any country has sought our advance approval for waging
war on another country. Thus, the request by the Prime Minister of
Israel for US permission to attack Iran is unprecedented.
So far, I have not found any statement by Gary Johnson that shows
clearly that if elected he would either give permission or not give
permission for Israel to attack Iran. In short, I have found no
"smoking gun". I have found one quote by Gary Johnson. This quote can
be read either way. He seems to be straddling the fence. Here is the
quote. I will leave it to you to decide whether this quote shows that
Gary Johnson either is for or against this proposed war.
"JOHNSON: Well, that would be one of our differences. I also happen to
think that Israel, you know, we were responsible for the creation of
Israel and that was through the United Nations; that they've been a
strong military ally, that they will remain such. I do not think a
military threat right now exists from Iran, but we should be vigilant
to that. And I think it's naive to think that Israel is not going to
act in their best interests should there be weapons of mass
destruction showing themselves.
"SIEGEL: And you would say the U.S. should support an Israeli action
in that case, if Israel were to act militarily?
"JOHNSON: Well, I would argue that that would probably be in our best
interest. And to have them do that is a better situation than U.S. men
and servicewomen engaged in the same."
Sam Sloan