- Pops & Drops: Hewlett-Packard, JP Morgan & Air Wagoner
- Mad Money Green Week: Owens Corning
- Fast & Furious: It's All About Soup
- Web Extra: The Trade on Walmart and RIMM
- Chartology: Grossly Oversold and Favoring the Upside
- The "Armageddon" Gameplan
- What's Next for Citigroup?
- What to Expect From a Geithner-led Treasury
- Value Trading Opportunity of a Lifetime?
- HP Earnings: How Much Will "Hurt" From Economy?
- Obama Warns On Economy: Works On Stimulus Plan
- Citigroup's Ills May Signal Market Isn't Near Bottom
- US Inflation Bonds Hit by Deflation, May Recover
- Pros Say: Market Will Drop 5-10% — Ford Will Boom
- Bonds Drop on Profit-Taking, Geithner Move
- Jack Welch on Detroit: Let Them Go Bankrupt
- Bank Shareholders Face 'the Unthinkable': El-Erian
- Heinz Profit Rises, Thanks to Hedging

Oct.10
1:39 PM ET
![]() |
AP Mitt Romney |
But the jabs at his comment last night on presidential authority to use force -- which have come from pundits and rivals alike -- can only be made by those making a calculated decision to ignore what Romney actually said and its obvious meaning.
Yes, Romney said he would "sit down with your attorneys."
But he said it by way of DISMISSING its importance as an obstacle. That was clear when he immediately followed the lawyers reference with, "Obviously the president of the U.S. has to do what's in the best interest of the U.S. to protect us against a potential threat."
In other words, the plain import of Romney's words was that he would act if he deemed it necessary whatever the lawyers said. This is also the view of the Bush administration, which last time I checked hadn't abolished the White House Counsel's office.
To suggest that Romney was articulating a different view is simply to grab hold of a cheap hook -- only Democratic sissies care what lawyers think -- and run with it despite the fact that Romney was espousing the Bush position on this question.
Questions? Comments? Write to .
© 2008 CNBC, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Permalink:
/id/21223856
MORE FROM CNBC



