Blogs–and especially conservative ones–are abuzz this morning over Mitt Romney’s answer in yesterday’s debate on whether he would have to ask Congress before taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities:
ROMNEY: You sit down with your attorneys and tell you what you have to do, but obviously the president of the United States has to do what’s in the best interest of the United States against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress…
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Did he need it?
ROMNEY: You know, we’re going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didn’t need to do, but certainly what you want to do is to have the agreement of all the people in the leadership of our government as well as our friends around the world where those circumstances are available.
That’s not the first time Romney has given conservatives heartburn by suggesting he would defer to the lawyers on a tricky and sensitive issue. Back in March, Ramesh Ponnuru reported this from Cato Institute President Ed Crane after a session Romney did with the Club for Growth:
Crane says he was disappointed with Romney’s answer to his question the other night. Crane asked if Romney believed the president should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no review. Romney said he would want to hear the pros and cons from smart lawyers before he made up his mind. Crane said that he had asked Giuliani the same question a few weeks ago. The mayor said that he would want to use this authority infrequently.
Interestingly, Ponnuru now defends Romney on the Iran question:
I think he’s getting a bad rap for wanting to consult with lawyers about what is in large part a legal question. The critiques of him over it—he should be sitting down with his generals instead (Thompson), he shouldn’t need a lawyer to tell him he needs congressional authorization (Paul)—are also not compatible with each other.