Democrats and Our Enemies - By Joe Lieberman
Lieberman’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today…must read:
“Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet.
Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot.”
Democrats and Our Enemies
By Joseph Lieberman
Wall Street Journal May 21, 2008
How did the Democratic Party get here? How did the party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy drift so far from the foreign policy and national security principles and policies that were at the core of its identity and its purpose?
Beginning in the 1940s, the Democratic Party was forced to confront two of the most dangerous enemies our nation has ever faced: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. In response, Democrats under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy forged and conducted a foreign policy that was principled, internationalist, strong and successful.
This was the Democratic Party that I grew up in – 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.
This was the Democratic Party of Harry Truman, who pledged that “it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.”
And this was the Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy, who promised in his inaugural address that the United States would “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom.”
This worldview began to come apart in the late 1960s, around the war in Vietnam. In its place, a very different view of the world took root in the Democratic Party. Rather than seeing the Cold War as an ideological contest between the free nations of the West and the repressive regimes of the communist world, this rival political philosophy saw America as the aggressor – a morally bankrupt, imperialist power whose militarism and “inordinate fear of communism” represented the real threat to world peace.
It argued that the Soviets and their allies were our enemies not because they were inspired by a totalitarian ideology fundamentally hostile to our way of life, or because they nursed ambitions of global conquest. Rather, the Soviets were our enemy because we had provoked them, because we threatened them, and because we failed to sit down and accord them the respect they deserved. In other words, the Cold War was mostly America’s fault.
Of course that leftward lurch by the Democrats did not go unchallenged. Democratic Cold Warriors like Scoop Jackson fought against the tide. But despite their principled efforts, the Democratic Party through the 1970s and 1980s became prisoner to a foreign policy philosophy that was, in most respects, the antithesis of what Democrats had stood for under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy.
Then, beginning in the 1980s, a new effort began on the part of some of us in the Democratic Party to reverse these developments, and reclaim our party’s lost tradition of principle and strength in the world. Our band of so-called New Democrats was successful sooner than we imagined possible when, in 1992, Bill Clinton and Al Gore were elected. In the Balkans, for example, as President Clinton and his advisers slowly but surely came to recognize that American intervention, and only American intervention, could stop Slobodan Milosevic and his campaign of ethnic slaughter, Democratic attitudes about the use of military force in pursuit of our values and our security began to change.
This happy development continued into the 2000 campaign, when the Democratic candidate – Vice President Gore – championed a freedom-focused foreign policy, confident of America’s moral responsibilities in the world, and unafraid to use our military power. He pledged to increase the defense budget by $50 billion more than his Republican opponent – and, to the dismay of the Democratic left, made sure that the party’s platform endorsed a national missile defense.
By contrast, in 2000, Gov. George W. Bush promised a “humble foreign policy” and criticized our peacekeeping operations in the Balkans.
Today, less than a decade later, the parties have completely switched positions. The reversal began, like so much else in our time, on September 11, 2001. The attack on America by Islamist terrorists shook President Bush from the foreign policy course he was on. He saw September 11 for what it was: a direct ideological and military attack on us and our way of life. If the Democratic Party had stayed where it was in 2000, America could have confronted the terrorists with unity and strength in the years after 9/11.
Instead a debate soon began within the Democratic Party about how to respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders made. When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves. By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.
Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party’s left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.
In this, Sen. Obama stands in stark contrast to John McCain, who has shown the political courage throughout his career to do what he thinks is right – regardless of its popularity in his party or outside it.
John also understands something else that too many Democrats seem to have become confused about lately – the difference between America’s friends and America’s enemies.
There are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy with hostile governments. Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet.
Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot.
If a president ever embraced our worst enemies in this way, he would strengthen them and undermine our most steadfast allies.
A great Democratic secretary of state, Dean Acheson, once warned “no people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies.” This is a lesson that today’s Democratic Party leaders need to relearn.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
I really like Lieberman more by the day. If Condi won’t go for vp I’d like to see him in the slot.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:51 amHe and Zel Miller, recently the only two principled Dems worth their salt. If there are others I don’t see ‘em or hear ‘em
May 21st, 2008 at 8:56 am“No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it. There can be no appeasement with ruthlessness. There can be no reasoning with an incendiary bomb.”
-Franklin Delano Roosevelt Fireside Chat (December 29, 1940)
“We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith,” he said. “I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hell bent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior. And there are both carrots and there are sticks available to them for those changes in behavior.”
-Obama 2007
Both quotes spoken by Democrates, 67 years apart. Evidence the left is dragging us….further to the left. This trend must stop.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:06 amI definitely have alot of respect for Joe Lieberman. I do believe he has seen the light. and understands what kind of danger this country and the free world as a whole faces.
He has held many liberals stances on issues in the past but i really think he has come around and would make a great VP. call me crazy if you want to
May 21st, 2008 at 9:15 amLieberman’s pro-abortion stance makes him radioactive to the Republican party base, so it would be suicidal for McCain to have him as VP…
May 21st, 2008 at 9:34 amHas anyone ever challeneged Hussein with the question, “What happens if your talks with Iran, etc. are not successful, and no change of behavior is accomplished?”
It seems like an obvious question, especially since we have already had “talks” with Iran through the UN, and we have gone the peaceful route through sanctions. Hussein’s cult is too ignorant to realize he is basically spouting ideas that have been tried and failed.
If the dems were serious about grabbing power, it would make sense to run someone like Lieberman, with an independent mindset…not a far far left freshman senator.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:46 amMcCain and other Republicans need to read this article about what they are up against:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/is_2008_to_be_a_transformation_1.html
Start throwing punches!
May 21st, 2008 at 9:52 am
Momps, Although Lieberman is on track with his view in relation to our enemies abroad, he is still a Liberal Democrat with socialist tendancies in taxation, healthcare and education. I like much of what he says but don’t be fooled, Conservative HE IS NOT!
May 21st, 2008 at 9:56 amI hope McCain picks Liebermann as his VP running mate.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:07 amYou hit the nail on the head!!
Joe Liebermann has the war and national security right but that’s about it. By all other standards he’s a very liberal democrat, who calls himself an independant.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:07 amI forget what politician in our history lived by the ideology that you surround yourself with your political adversaries in order to give you balanced opinions, not just a rubber stamp.
i think it was FDR…maybe i’m mistaken though
May 21st, 2008 at 11:19 amVery interesting piece I received as an e-mail:
How Long Do We Have ?
This is the most interesting thing I’ve read in a long time. The sad thing about it, you can see it coming.
I have always heard about this democracy countdown. It is interesting to see it in print. God help us, not that we deserve it.
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.”
“A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.”
“From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”
“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years”
“During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the
following sequence:
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage”
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul,
Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000
Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Gore: 19 Bush: 29
Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000 Bush: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million Bush: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore: 13.2 Bush: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won
was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country.
Gore’s territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal’s and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
If you are in favor of this then delete this message. If you are not then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.
May 21st, 2008 at 11:26 amI would also like to see Liebermans current voting record. some people are capable of their ‘moment of clarity’.
afterall, who would have imagined Joe Lieberman supporting Bush on Iraq and the GWOT? i sure as hell wouldnt have. not saying he has changed all of his views because well, i dont know. but would love to find out
May 21st, 2008 at 11:42 amYou people on this site have no conception of history or the truth of it! Lieberman is a full of crap liberal democrat and you idiots are so desperate to make that ass McCain looks good for winning the presidency that you are willing to take any other ass to go with him. Have your memories faded that you can forget 2000 election and what a partisan hack Lieberman was??!!
His letter proves he has not changed at all.
“By contrast, in 2000, Gov. George W. Bush promised a “humble foreign policy” and criticized our peacekeeping operations in the Balkans.” THIS IS BULLSHIT! If there was a lame war that was one! The only reason that we went into the Balkans was so that Clinton could cover up all his crap. If we went there to stop genocide then why did we not go into Rwanda huh??! Lieberman says it right here on why Bush criticized the so called operation that was a war, “criticized our peacekeeping operations in the Balkans” This was a war that was run as bad as Johnson ran Vietnam and Bush new it!! There is crap still going on there!! Milosevic was corrupt but he was killing stinking terrorists!
“Beginning in the 1940s, the Democratic Party was forced to confront two of the most dangerous enemies our nation has ever faced: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. In response, Democrats under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy forged and conducted a foreign policy that was principled, internationalist, strong and successful.” MORE BULLSHIT!!! It was democrats in Washington and across America that did not want to go to war and the only reason we did was because Roosevelt’s beloved Russia was attacked by Hitler. The democrats under Truman, and Kennedy let communism take hold in China and Cuba and almost all of Korea. Let’s not forget Carter in the mix! These so called great leaders have forged the world we see today.
“This happy development continued into the 2000 campaign, when the Democratic candidate – Vice President Gore – championed a freedom-focused foreign policy, confident of America’s moral responsibilities in the world, and unafraid to use our military power. He pledged to increase the defense budget by $50 billion more than his Republican opponent – and, to the dismay of the Democratic left, made sure that the party’s platform endorsed a national missile defense.”
“By contrast, in 2000, Gov. George W. Bush promised a “humble foreign policy” and criticized our peacekeeping operations in the Balkans.” THIS SCREAMS BULLSHIT!!! Gore was a part of an administration that gutted the military! Gore would be blaming global warming for this!
“Of course that leftward lurch by the Democrats did not go unchallenged. Democratic Cold Warriors like Scoop Jackson fought against the tide. But despite their principled efforts, the Democratic Party through the 1970s and 1980s became prisoner to a foreign policy philosophy that was, in most respects, the antithesis of what Democrats had stood for under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy.” THE MORE I READ THIS TRIPE THE MORE FULL OF CRAP IT IS!! ONLY ONE MAN ENDED THE COLD WAR!!
It certainly appears that most of you on this site have all gone to government schools and been fed the liberal lies of history!
May 21st, 2008 at 11:53 amAs much as i would prefer having everything in congress be fiscally conservative (i don’t really care much about the social issues because they shouldn’t be national issues…social issues are the job of the state to decide)you almost need to appoint a more moderate cabinet. The country is way to polarized and I would prefer having a few more moderate independents in office to remove the deadlock of this do-nothing congress.
I understand he is very liberal in many respects, but rather than polarizing the political landscape even more by a cabinet and vp that will do nothing more than instigate more conflict, I think that a more moderate/liberal independent would bring the left back to center a bit.
What is striking about Lieberman as well as McCain is that they both stand their ground regardless of political repercussions. Both of them were ostracized by their party for their views and risked a great deal of their political future for something that ended up being correct.
as a side note though you should listen to an interview done by Terry Gross of Mickey Edwards about his book “reclaiming conservativism)- interview is about moving back the the basics of conservativism - small government, defense, etc.
http://wamu.org/programs/dr/08/05/20.php#20512
May 21st, 2008 at 12:02 pmI’m sorry, not terry gross. it was on the Dianne Rehm show by guest host Steve Roberts. good listen nonetheless.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:03 pmAgain I couldn’t disagree more. The thought that we are currently so “divided” is simply allowing the current main stream media to brainwash your every thought. Our country was built on partisanship. You can go back to the Revolution where almost half of our founders didn’t want to succeed from Britain. To think that moderates are who is needed in Washington is to totally miss what Conservatives stand for as well as our countries history and direction. McCain is going to be a painful pill to swallow and quite frankly if his view on the support of this war was not there my vote for him wouldn’t be either. Actually it still may not be but Moderates are, if not more dangerous than liberals, then they are just as dangerous by always riding the fence instead of standing for steadfast principles.
Why is it always thought that “compromise” is always necessary for progress? Immigration, taxes, education and healthcare SHOULD NEVER BE SACRIFICED just so we can all “get along” and avoid the deadlock! It’s time we make them come to our side and not bastardize our beliefs all for the sake of gettin’ along.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:38 pmIt time Joe Lieberman to switched to the GOP, Someone hand him Harry Reid’s gavel.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:32 pmLieberman is an AIPAC supporter to the max.
Therefore he supports ANY US intervention in the Middle East on behalf of Israel. Which lets face is 50% of the reason we attacked Iraq. 25% Oil control 25% MONEY make the rest
May 21st, 2008 at 1:45 pmif oil was that big of a reason we really got the short end of the stick
May 21st, 2008 at 2:04 pmHI,
Quote from Max:
“Lieberman’s pro-abortion stance makes him radioactive to the Republican party base, so it would be suicidal for McCain to have him as VP”
Other than that…I think Joe Is one of the only true “real” Congressmen or Senator we have working for US…the American People’s best interest.
He showed his “true colors” when he “left the Left”….when they were and have gone to far left. Sure wish he would re-think his abortion postion.
I know this is a little ‘blatant’…but I have been doing: http://iraqsinconvenienttruth.com for over a year now (no ads or donations)…if you like it…please post in forums or recommend it.
I would do the Prime Ad spot on Pats blog….but my cash flow is dry for the moment.
Peace!,
May 21st, 2008 at 2:40 pmDan (Dan2)
http://iraqsinconvenienttruth.com/
We won’t have an America if we don’t get people elected who understand as Liberman does the nature of this beast.
I really do not wish to go the way of the Romans but too many are delusional and on self destruct.
Sad sad truth .
May 21st, 2008 at 5:35 pmhttp://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp
Unfortunately that Tyler quote isn’t accurate. The population and square mile stat is correct though. And the correct murder statistic is still compelling.
Gore: 6.5
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:10 amBush: 4.1