Gary Johnson on SyriaPEDRO ECHEVARRIA: The front page of "The New York Times" takes a look at President Obama's efforts to resettle Syrian refugees.
GARY JOHNSON: I think we bear a responsibility for the refugee crisis and we should be taking on our fair share. What is the mathematics of having disrupted 11 million Syrians, half the population? When it comes to the U.S., I think we can deal with this effectively. Should it be carte blanche? No, but we can have a system in place to accept refugees right off the bat. Other refugees might be questionable, backgrounds or whatever. We've directed enough of our resources on the military side to deal with the refugee side of it humanely and in a way that reflects what America is all about. Opportunity, freedom, liberty. You want to come to the U.S. and work hard and be honest, you will get ahead.
31 May, 2016: Gary Johnson with Pedro Echevarria on Washington Journal on C-SPAN.org (starting at 28:50)
JOE ROGAN: When I’ve talked to military operatives though, they believe a proactive attack, or proactive action, is much more likely to stop ISIS or any-
GARY JOHNSON: Well and that, that’s been our tact to date. And I’m gonna say that, without exception, that every one of those military interventions have had an unintended consequence of at best. You know, we, we, we go, we’re, we always deal with atrocity. There atrocities going on. We go in to deal with that atrocity, and at the end of the day, the new dictator, the new despot that we put into place to replace the bad despot, at the end of the day, is just as bad or in many cases worse. We cut off the head of the hydra, and lo and behold, there are more heads.
ROGAN: So how does one stop that? I mean, have you ever tried to come up with some sort of a solution or look at some sort of a long-term plan that would somehow or another calm the world, or at least, allow the United States to make peace?
JOHNSON: One of the reasons that I’m seeking to become President of the United States is I think I’d do a really good job of presiding over, over all the intelligence that we do have regarding all of this. I don’t want, I don’t want to present myself as having the answers, as much as, you know what, give me, give me the intel, let me be part of this discussion, and um, but I’m gonna enter in to this discussion, as a real skeptic, um, on what we’ve done to this point, and a real skeptic on what appears to be what we’re gonna do in the future regarding all this. Isn’t there a more effective way of dealing with this?
I wouldn’t be seeking this job if um, if I didn’t think I could make a difference in it. And I, I do not want to misstate. I don’t, I don’t wanna play cards. Obama draws lines in the sand. I’m not gonna draw lines in the sand. If you draw any lines in the sand, you’d better be prepared to back up what you said with action. And that’s also been an issue with Obama.
ROGAN: How much difference do you think perspective changes once you get into office? Once you get into office and you sit down with military leaders, and you sit down with someone who explains to you the, the actual landscape you’re dealing with?
JOHNSON: I think, I think that perspective can change a lot, but how about being transparent? How about saying, how about being transparent with the American public? How about educating the American public to um, to the intel that does exist?
ROGAN: So would that possibly alert the enemies we have knowledge of somethings they may or may not know we have knowledge of?
JOHNSON: Well, you certainly wouldn’t want to cross over that line in any way whatsoever, but uh, if, if, you got elected to office saying we should not unilaterally intervened, military interventions have an unintended consequence, and the next day, you militarily intervenes somewhere, you’d better darn well get up in front of the American public and take a, take the eggs and the tomatoes, or, or worse.
ROGAN: What was your take when Obama went on television, and was talking about how we needed to invade Syria? And Syria was a huge issue, and the American public was up in arms, both the right and the left. People were like, “What are you talking about? This is craziness.” And then the administration backed off. I mean, was it, in my opinion, it was one of the first […] it was one of the first examples of the United States, sort of collectively, the will of the people, like being openly expressed, that the idea of erring Syria was outrageous. Nobody wanted to do it. They didn’t make any sense to people, this gas attack. How was this anymore horrible than a lot of shit that’s been going on over the world all the time? What is, what is it about Syria that all of a sudden we have to go invade Syria? One more intervention in another country, and the administration backed off?
JOHNSON: Great example. People are fed up with this, and in fact, you know, 22 million people in Syria, and 11 million of them have been displaced. Don’t we, don’t we have a share in, share in that consequence?
ROGAN: What was the motivation? What’s the motivation for the United States to want to invade there in the first place?
JOHNSON: Well, wasn’t it the, McCain going over there, beating his chess, and uh, along with Lindsey Graham, and uh, and let’s go over there and support the good guys? Well, the good guys are the minority, and the good guys, at the end of the day, are um… Look, this is… somehow we’re gonna determine the outcomes of, in other countries? I am, I mean, that’s just, it’s preposterous. That uh, as individuals we can do that.
17 May, 2016: Gary Johnson on The Joe Rogan Experience (starting at 2:05:20)
“State Dept officials calling for "regime change" in Syria...because it has worked so well elsewhere?”
17 June, 2016: Gary Johnson on Twitter