Should attorneys decide when the US goes to war ?....or should President Romney?
By Jack Ryan Posted in 2008 — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In my opinion, the following exchange between Mitt Romney and Chris Matthews was the big story of the debate today.
Chris Matthews -> "If you were president of the United States, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities?"
Mitt 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..."
The above statement by Mitt Romney tells me all I need to know about his qualifications to be commander in chief. In fact, Romney's reply sounded much like what we would hear out of the mouths of liberal democrats like Obama or Edwards.
For arguments sake, lets suppose that after consulting with his attorneys, Mitt Romney is persuaded that an attack on Iran would be illegal. Does that mean Romney wouldn't order a preemptive strike on Iran to protect US interests ? Do we really want a commander in chief who runs runs his foreign policy decisions through attorney screenings ? Isn't that exactly what Bill Clinton did when he allowed Bin Ladin to get away after being being advised by his attorneys?
It may be "correct" - but it was boneheaded. As we can see from this post - the average American isn't going to understand the nuances of the mechanics of going to war. They are going to understand that Romney said he's need to consult the lawyers before he could make the decision.
His answer should have been - NO. He does not need Congressional authorization before acting. It would be in keeping with the position of every president since Nixon - that the War Powers Act is an unconstitutional infringement on executive power as commander-in-chief.
Simple answer - No, I don't need prior approval, but I would seek to involve congressional leaders before making such a decision. Period. End of answer. What happens between the point when President Romney says "We will strike Iranian nuclear facilities" and the point when the bombs fall, is indeed TMI - and it totally misses the larger point.
The question asked of Mitt Romney was whether he would attack Iran's nuke facilities without first going to congress for approval. Romney replied by suggesting he would consult with his attorneys first.
The fact that the issue of attacking Iran has already been discussed for a few years makes one wonder why Mitt Romney still needs the advice of attorneys before he would make that decision ? Considering the next president could very well be faced with the decision of attacking Iran, one would think Romney would already have come to a firm decision as to what he would do. So why didn't he just come out and answer the question directly ?
I'm not an agent, I just write books
So what candidate on the stage would actually call up his general to bomb the heck out of Iran before talking to the white house attorney? Romney has be one of the most vocal critics of Iran during this campaign season. The question is can you send bombers without Congressional approval? Step one, ask the attorney for advice, if that advice is no, tell attorney to go earn his/her pay and figure out a way to legally do it, thus his follow up is sufficient:
"but obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States..."
I would chalk this up as a gaffe, but not a sissy, "what we would hear out of the mouths of liberal democrats like Obama or Edwards." Obama and Edwards would go talk to Reid/Pelosi, not their attorney, except for Edwards who would go talk to the whole bar.
Mitt Romney's statement regarding attorney consultation was strikingly similar to that of Bill Clinton's during the late 1990's. It was Bill Clinton who suggested that the reason the US didn't bring in OBL was due to advice of attorneys who suggested to do so might be in violation of the law.
While its true that attacking Iran is a seperate issue than capturing OBL, the underlying thought process of using attorneys to decide military policy is not. And after running for a year already, one would think that Mitt Romney would have already known what he would do on an issue as important as the potential bombing of Iran. In his response to the question tonight, it is clear that he is clueless regarding the need for congressional approval.
I'm not an agent, I just write books
I'll agree he fell into Christopher's trap. But then he recovered. And puleeeze, this makes him a Bill Clinton? I understand you saying that if Romney said, I'll only bomb Iran IF the attorneys say it's alright. But that's not what he said, yet it's what you're inferring.
Again, no Romney fan. But you're inferring a lot from a rather short answer to a loaded question.
As I noted in another comment - this is a gaffe - maybe a bad one. It is not disqualifying. It certainly is not Clintonesque. It was more significant for the unpreparedness of it, and what that says about claims of "slickness," then it did about his views on Iran.
Remmington says->I'll agree he fell into Christopher's trap. But then he recovered. And puleeeze, this makes him a Bill Clinton? I understand you saying that if Romney said, I'll only bomb Iran IF the attorneys say it's alright. But that's not what he said, yet it's what you're inferring.
If thats not what Romney was suggesting, then why did he say it ? There was NO need to say he would consult with attorneys first unless he thought there was a reason. You can think what you want, but I respectfully disagree.
I'm not an agent, I just write books
Look at the question he was asked.
He was NOT asked - would you bomb Iran. He was asked - would you seek authorization from Congress before bombing Iran.
Again - involving lawyers in the first = bad. Involving lawyers in the second = reasonable. Maybe not ideal, but reasonable.
You are treating this as if he said "I would consult lawyers before deciding whether tho bomb Iranian nuclear facilities." That's not the question he was answering. If made into a whole sentence (rather than the fragment it was to start), the answer would have been "I would consult the lawyers about what to do with regard to Congressional authorization."
This is one of those times when having graduated from law school definitely helps me. Makes me alert to exactly what he "admitted" based on the question he was asked.
The simple fact is, the question related to whether or not the president has authority to bomb Iran without congressional approval. This question is no longer a hypothetical because congress has ALREADY given GW Bush tacit approval to do so. Yet, Mitt Romney didn't want to answer the question directly - instead he acted as if he has been in a glass bubble the past two years while the current president and congress have been discussing this issue.
But my question still remains, in Mitt Romney's world, what if his attorneys advised him that an attack on Iran WAS illegal without congressional approval ? The fact that Romney even mentioned consultation with attorneys suggests to me that such consultation would take precedence over his own desires. Otherwise, there would have been no reason to mention attorney consultation to begin with.
I'm not an agent, I just write books
There's a point. The answer raises more questions than it answered. And that is why it is a gaffe. But he did follow it up with a qualifier. So, I don't think it's as serious as you are making it.
BTW, I'm not a Romney fan. Would like him to fall on his face actually. Not sure this is quite the trip wire I was hoping for.
Remember that the question came from a rabid Republican-hater. It was probably designed to trip them up.
All the guys up there would probably ask their lawyers about the War Powers Act, congressional authorizations, and the like. In all fairness, my guess is that the memo on it would be prepared during the transition or early on, to be referred to whenever an incident arose. And like all prior administrations it would probably say that War Powers is unconstitutional and has no legal validity. Politically, though, it might be necessary to seek authorization.
He made his answer more complicated than it needed to be, but he didn't really say anything everybody with a brain doesn't know would be happening. It sounded like this was an "unscripted" moment - Romney was not prepared for such a question. That fact seems to me more telling than the answer - when put on the spot without the white papers, he's not as sharp and polished as he is elsewhere.
Romney did not answer the question well, I agree. But you're taking the extra mile to ridicule him on the hypothetical "what if" they said it was illegal dispite the War Powers Act. The answer is simple, OK, Mr. Attorney, thanks for you're input, now go earn your money and find out all the ways to make it legal. That's what attorney's do. And that is the American way.
He messed up, but then reason caught up with him after the first sentence left his mouth and he tried to recover. I'm just puzzled why you keep ignoring his recovery statement, "but obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States...".
First - the potential bombing of Iran is not a hypothetical pie in the sky academic discussion. The fact is, congress has ALREADY given GW Bush tacit approval to do what is necessary with respect to Iran. I'm assuming Romney already knows this...it was in all the papers...so why didn't he just come out and state the obvious ?
Instead he told us that he would run to the lawyers before making a decision. Not a good night for Mitt.
I'm not an agent, I just write books
I get your point. And I sympathize with it. But I think you are mischaracterizing what was said. He clearly did not say he would consult lawyers before deciding to bomb Iran. He DID say he would consult them before deciding whether to seek congressional approval for such a decision. Two very different things.
The first would be bad - very bad. That would place a military decision in lawyers' hands, ala Clinton. The second is logical - maybe not great - but certainly not detrimental to national security. So what if the lawyers say "you really should go get authorization?" Even W has gone to Congress for authorization of military action.
The interesting follow-up here would be - assuming the lawyers suggested getting authorization and you did seek it and Congress refused, what would you do? If the answer is "bomb them anyway because I'm the President and in the end it's my decision - Congress can deny funding later" then whatever method he took to get there is really small change.
Bombing Iran is not something that is going to happen overnight. We know what they're up to, we probably know where they're up to it at, and the fate of the world will likely not turn on whether the decision to bomb is made in a day or a week or even a month. This decision would be made long before we got to the stage where they're actually screwing the warhead on the missile. So, there will be time for some consideration of the situation before action is taken.
In my opinion, the following exchange between Mitt Romney and Chris Matthews was the big story of the debate today...
Very good Jack, that's exactly the opinion that Chris told you to have in his post-debate "analysis." Romney clearly indicated that his consultation with attorneys was about legal niceties of dealing with Congress, not Matthews' deliberate mischaracterization of letting "attorneys decide when the US goes to war" which you fell for hook, line and sinker.
Most of us know how to listen to the MSNBC crew for laughs, and can tell when they're feeding us a line of bull. Sorry about your handicap.
1) If it's five minutes to midnight, you have to make a go/no go decision, and the fate of decent humanity hangs in the balance, an executive has to execute. Work it out with Congress afterwards and limit the blowback as best you can.
2) Before it ever gets to going on the Witchin'-Hour, lay a groundwork. Tell Congress and the American People, and most importantly; Iran what will happen if they rub you wrong. If people know going into that scenario what youa re 75% likely to do, either
a) Iran never puts you in that scenario.
or
b)People may not like it, but at least they were mentally prepared to see the rounds fly down range.
Freedom Fighter in Occupied VA
But Jack here's a Thompson-bot. He needs to attack.
__________________________________________
First State Politics
My reaction to Mitt Romney's reply has nothing to do with my support for other candidates - but far more to do with choosing the right commander in chief during a time of war. Conservatives, even those who like Romney such as Bill Bennet, are stating essentially the same thing I have said.
If any of you noticed - even Ron Paul got a good laugh at Romney's expense regarding the attorney gaffe. I seriously doubt Thompson, Giuliani, McCain, or Duncan Hunter would EVER have stated they would consult with attorneys first before deciding to get congressional approval over an issue that has ALREADY BEEN DECIDED !
The simple fact is, with Romney's history of flip flopping, and now this, Mitt Romney has shown that he is the wrong guy to be leading the US military during a time of war. He's just too darn wishy washy. Period!
The bottom line is - I want the republicans to win in 2008. And if any of you think Mitt Romney is the best candidate to go up against the Clinton media machine, you are sadly mistaken, as they would tear Romney apart piece by piece.
I'm not an agent, I just write books
This reminds me of TMI (too much information). Mr. Ryan do you actually believe that Bush didn't consult with the White House attorneys before he invaded Afghanistan? Were not the attorneys present during the Iraq pre-invasion discussions with Bush? You don't ask the attorneys if we should go to war, you ask them how we can politically get it done best with the rest of the world and global agreements. Romney said, "You sit down with your attorneys and tell you what you have to do..." This is a correct statement of political finesse with the rest of the world, not a decision making process of whether we blow the heck out of some enemy or not. We blow the heck out of them, but do so in a way that pisses off the least amount of allies as they will inevitably become involved to varying degrees.
Romney messed up here by giving a business answer during a business debate. Ironically, the correct political answer is not to even talk about the nuts and bolts actions a President has to take like involving attorneys even when that is the exact thing every President does when they're getting ready cross borders with an armed force.
Business and political reality, TMI for Joe America and Mr. Ryan.
[OK, 62% bot free]