Via  Editors of  Family Security Matters

In a recent op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) bemoans the state of the Democrat Party. Lieberman officially left the party when he lost the Connecticut primary for the 2006 senatorial election and was reelected as an independent, although he still caucuses with the Democrats.

Lieberman says the Democrat Party he grew up in was "a party that was unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American, a party that was unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders. It was a party that understood that either the American people stood united with free nations and freedom fighters against the forces of totalitarianism, or that we would fall divided." He cites the fact that the Democrats were instrumental in facing two of the greatest threats in the 20th century: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. He also heaps praise on the likes of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy.

Not that all of these men were perfect. For example, we should remember that FDR originally might have been categorized as an appeaser: he congratulated Neville Chamberlain for his efforts at "peace in our time" and was determined to stay neutral as war waged once again in Europe (even though he supported Britain and made it possible for the U.S. to sell weapons to the British). Our entry into World War II was in retaliation for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, fighting Germany only because, as allies of Japan, they declared war on us first. And before FDR, Woodrow Wilson kept us neutral during World War I until it was discovered that the Germans were trying to provoke Japan and Mexico to attack us to keep us busy and away from Europe. However, once the Americans were engaged in both wars they and their leaders did not look back; they did not second-guess themselves. They fought to win.

As Lieberman notes, the party lurched further Leftward in the late 1960s during the Vietnam War, seeing America as a "morally bankrupt, imperialist power." While there was a slight reversal of this trend during the late 1980s and during the 1990s, the Democrats are once again firmly entrenched on the far Left when it comes to our sovereignty and national security, preferring to see President Bush as a greater enemy than Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and other Islamist groups bent on our destruction.

Of great concern to Lieberman today is how presidential candidate Barack Obama has failed to stand up to the party’s Left wing "on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign." One example of Obama’s questionable foreign policy regards his proclamation that he would meet personally with leaders of anti-American regimes like Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Syria and others during his first year in office with no preconditions.

From Obama’s website, regarding Iran:

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

Obama also recently stated that Iran does not pose a "serious threat" to the United States, although he quickly changed tack after John McCain called him on it, saying "Iran is a grave threat."

He reiterated this open door policy while on the campaign trail in Oregon:

"If George Bush and John McCain have a problem with direct diplomacy, led by the President of the United States, then they can explain why they have a problem with John F. Kennedy, because that’s what he did with Khrushchev, or Ronald Reagan, because that’s what he did with Gorbachev, or Richard Nixon, because that’s what he did with Mao."

Is this an apt comparison? Not really. Ronald Reagan didn’t engage in direct diplomacy with the Soviets until his second term, using his first term to fight for missile placement in Europe, start the Strategic Defense Initiative, rebuild a military that had been gutted by the Democrats, and a host of other preparations that laid the groundwork for talks with Gorbachev. Reagan also knew that by engaging the Soviets in an arms race their precarious economy would eventually be bankrupted and they would therefore be further disadvantaged at the bargaining table.

Richard Nixon dealt with China - also waiting until his second term - as a key to ending the Vietnam War. KT McFarland explains:

China needed training and technology to enter the modern world - as well as breathing space from foreign threats in order to modernize its economy. Nixon calculated that, taken together, these were more important to China than fighting a proxy war in Vietnam.

Nixon also recognized the Sino-Soviet Communist alliance was cracking, and we could exploit it by being China’s great power counterweight to the Soviet Union. The threat of a loose Sino-American alliance gave us the leverage we needed to get the Soviets to the negotiating table on arms control. Nixon met with Mao Zedong only after he had the leverage needed to negotiate.

In other words, both Reagan and Nixon took their time, did their homework, and had bargaining chips to play with before meeting face to face with their enemies.

Why does Obama fail to mention the crucial steps taken by presidents he would hold up as examples? Simple ignorance of the facts? Or is it because his main supporters would not approve of similar tactics? Either way, it does not bode well for American foreign policy under the stewardship of a President Obama. Nor it does not bode well for the American public that our media is not asking Obama these essential questions for by doing so, they would shed an unflattering light on Obama’s commitment to "end[ing] misguided defense policies":

First, I’ll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I’m the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.

Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.

I will not weaponize space.

I will slow our development of future combat systems.

And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.

Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.

Radio talk show host Sean Hannity often wonders, "What would Reagan do?" when it comes to tough decisions being made in America today. Somehow I doubt he and Obama would see eye to eye on national security issues (or much else).

Lieberman reminds us of the wise words of a former Democrat secretary of state, Dean Acheson, who warned "no people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies." That brings to mind of another famous quote, this one by Winston Churchill: "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

Are we ready to elect the zookeeper to the White House?