This is fro an article written by Normon Soloman about Sen. Morse's opinion about who could challenge the President.

"...The black-and-white TV footage is grainy and faded, but it still jumps off the screen – a portentous clash between a prominent reporter and a maverick politician. On the CBS program Face the Nation, journalist Peter Lisagor argued with a senator who stood almost alone on Capitol Hill, strongly opposing the war in Vietnam from the outset.

"Senator, the Constitution gives to the president of the United States the sole responsibility for the conduct of foreign policy," Lisagor said.

"Couldn't be more wrong," Wayne Morse broke in. "You couldn't make a more unsound legal statement than the one you have just made. This is the promulgation of an old fallacy that foreign policy belongs to the president of the United States. That's nonsense."

Lisagor: "To whom does it belong then, senator?"

Morse: "It belongs to the American people.... And I am pleading that the American people be given the facts about foreign policy."

Lisagor: "You know, senator, that the American people cannot formulate and execute foreign policy."

Morse: "Why do you say that?... I have complete faith in the ability of the American people to follow the facts if you'll give them. And my charge against my government is – we're not giving the American people the facts."

In early August 1964, Morse was one of only two senators to vote against the Tonkin Gulf resolution, a resolution remarkably similar to the one the U.S. Senate just passed. It served as a green light for the Vietnam War. While reviled by much of the press in his home state of Oregon as well as nationwide, he persisted with fierce oratory for peace.

Over the next four years Oregon's senior senator was remarkable because he challenged the morality – not just the "winability" – of the war. He passionately asserted that the United States had no right to impose its will on the world. In the process, he made enemies of many fellow Democrats, including President Lyndon Johnson...."

http://www.webcom.com/hrin/magazine/tonkin.html

According to Morse, anyone could challenge the drive to war. The problem is that government has been put together to prevent its people from mounting any challenge on these matters.

This came up early on,

"...And Paul, who doesn't believe in government and who thus doesn't believe in any kind of countervailing power to corporate power, will have no weapons with which to fight back."

I have to admit Paul's position on the war and the limited role of our military in the world is very attractive to me. The argument that he makes is persuasive, that we should not have entangling military aliances. If anything we should have trade. There might be joint efforts to deal with health issues. This should be the Democrats' position.

However, I am concerned about the problem here, that government in the hands of the people protects the population from the greed and short-sightedness of business. With a government limited by a Paul administration, you'd think that the population would be at the complete mercy of the economic elites.

I'm wondering whether the effort to limit government in order to bring policy back to our country's roots will also imply some effort to limit the power and influence of business. I suspect big business comes and goes with big government.

I would appreciate somebody pressing Paul to address himself to this concern. Does he think there would be any problem for the population if business was unregulated or unsupervised?

Glenn,

I agree with your argument that the Dems and Obama in particular would be strong if they stood by their guns, so to speak. However, their problem, I'm afraid, is that they have not developed any foreign policy ideas of their own.

That is, they have no strong position on what to do about "enemies" and "problems overseas" other than the ones advocated by the war mongering right wing. They have no alternative to: "The only good Indian/Commie/blankety-blank is a dead Indian/Commie/fill in the blank."

I would suggest several alternatives like "we should trade with these people" or "we should avoid foreign entanglements except those where we address commercial or humanitarian pursuits." It's ideas like these which are different from the one's we usually hear and which have lead to our "empire-building."

Unfortunately, I suspect it's the fact that empire building is profitable to many of the defense related businesses that now support Democratic candidates which prevents Democrats in enough numbers from opposing wars and empire.