David French had an interesting post yesterday about Romney's war stance over at Evangelicals for Mitt. The basic question is whether Mitt is anti-war. The answer is obviously no, but Romney, unlike McCain, Thompson, and to a lesser extent Giuliani, has not over committed to any particular policy in Iraq if he were elected President. This derives from the fact that he didn't play any part in getting us into Iraq and wants to have flexibility in making decisions that would be in America's interest.

We do a disservice to ourselves when we get too wrapped up in these games. People who understand the nomination process for judges understand this. If a potential Supreme Court Appointment is on record as saying the Roe v. Wade should be overturned, that nominee is headed for trouble. It is much better to have a nominee who hopefully will not have to directly answer that question because it is so unpalatable to the other side and will result in their being torpedoed.

When we consider who is the best person to nominate for President, we know Romney does not have the baggage of Iraq and hence can appeal to those people who want someone strong on terror, without alienating independent voters who wish we had never invaded Iraq. If you buy Gingrich's "need a clean break" from the current administration, Romney is the best prospect. Part of the reason Romney is so feared by the Democrats is precisely because they will have a hard time saddling him with the anti-war sentiment in the country.

If Romney is forced into saying he would have invaded Iraq, even if he would have, that statement is going to be used with great effect in the general election against him, much like Thompson's TV ad urging the invasion will be used against him.