As President Obama continues to seem focused on putting Senator John Kerry (D-MA) forward for Secretary of State, it's worth asking what kind of world Kerry desires to see. How will he handle our enemies and what will he say to our friends?
Specifically, will Benghazi II be right around the corner if Kerry is nominated and confirmed? And will our our Islamist enemies be emboldened once they see a man who has never been keen on the war on terror suddenly in charge of the U.S. State Dept?
All of these questions are reasonable because Kerry's past portends something for our future as nation, should be we put him in that pivotal position.
Think about it this way: If Kerry had gotten his way while a Senator during the 1980s, there's at least a slight chance we could still be dealing with the Soviet Union instead of Russia. For it was during the 1980s that Kerry opposed President Ronald Reagan at every turn in the road -- even going so far as to the side with the Soviets on issues of bilateral disarmament that Reagan wisely understood would only be U.S. disarmament if we were silly enough to sign on to them.
During Reagan's tenure, Kerry opposed the Strategic Defense Initiative, pejoratively labeled "Star Wars," but which is now the foundation of missile shield technology former Soviet satellite nations begged Obama for during his first term.
If Kerry had triumphed over Reagan, that "cancer on our nation's defense" would have ended shortly after it began, and would have never turned into one of our last, best lines of defense.
Kerry also opposed "the B-1 bomber, the B-2 Stealth bomber, the AH-64 Apache helicopter, the Patriot missile, the F-15...and the Trident missile system," to name but a few.
Of course, Kerry's opposition to Stealth technology -- had it succeeded -- would not have just affected the Cold War outcome, but also Desert Storm, the Iraq War, and innumerable other aspects of the War on Terror.
Is this really the kind of individual we want at the helm of the State Dept?