A TERRORIST CONSPIRACY to blow up American airliners flying from Britain to the United States--surely the most threat ening terrorist plot since 9/11--was broken up last week. The fighting between Israel and the terrorist group Hezbollah continued to raise the possibility of a full-scale Middle East war. And in Baghdad, American and Iraqi soldiers waged a last-ditch battle to cleanse the city of insurgents and terrorists and suicide bombers.

Meanwhile, Dem ocrats ousted their leading national security hawk, Senator Joe Lieber man of Connecticut, and re placed him with a rich dilettante, Ned Lamont, who ran his campaign on the single issue of getting American troops out of Iraq.

So it comes down to this: As the world got more dangerous, the Dem o crats got more pacifist and more left-wing. At the least, they have become less committed (or not committed at all) to a strong national security policy and less eager to defend America's interests around the world or to promote democracy.

The nomination of Lamont as the Democratic Senate candidate in Connecticut brought into focus what are emerging as key Democratic positions: a deep aversion to the use of force, a naive belief in diplomacy that comes close to outright appeasement, a view that President Bush's war on terrorism is a greater threat to America than Islamic terrorism itself, and declining support for Israel.

The Democratic party's lurch to the left is accompanied by a cold partisanship. Simon Rosenberg, whose New Democrat Network was once touted as a force for moderation,

In terms of ideology, Democrats have adopted a slightly varnished version of the staunch leftism associated with European parties. Those are anti-American left-wing parties, by the way. In terms of politics, Democrats have moved in a direction unlikely to succeed over time in a country with a center-right majority.

But this may make no difference in the midterm election on November 7. Democrats are not the issue this year. As things stand now, an unpopular president, a dejected Republican party, and a war in Iraq with no end in sight are the chief issues. Democrats should benefit from all of these. Only the terror issue, revived by the plot to blow up U.S. airlines, stands in the way of substantial Democratic gains in the House and Senate.

In 2008, however, Bush will step down and a new president will be elected. And the paramount issue will be national security, as it always is in presidential years. Democrats, weak on national security and growing weaker still, are bound to suffer.

The rejection of Lieberman was im portant not only because he backs the Iraq war and is a Democrat willing to deal with Bush, but also because of who he is. He is the last of a long line of pro-defense Democrats once called Cold War liberals, a line including Harry Truman, JFK, and Henry Jackson. He is one of the party's most prominent defenders of Israel. And he was picked as the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2000 largely because of his reputation as a hard-liner on defense. Lieberman is not just another Democrat.