Thursday, October 19, 2006

Hayhurst on the War: Meet the New Boss

Mr. John Good is the proprietor of Left in Aboite, an excellent blog which -- unlike this one -- gets quite a bit of traffic. Of course, part of that is undoubtedly due to his posting something every day, and several things most days. He's a real blogger, and I'm more what you'd call a real slacker.

Anyway, he was kind enough to leave me a couple of comments on the previous post. In the second, he left the URL for a post on Fort Wayne Left which lays out the Hayhurst position on national security. This was by way of helping me on an extended quest (here, here, here, and here) to find out where Hayhurst stands on The War (on Turr'r, on Afghanistan, on Iraq, etc.). My reason for trying to find out was that the incumbent is the sort of person who more or less demands a good smack in the piehole; I needed to know whether a vote for his opponent is an acceptable act, from my point of view.

It isn't.

The more-substantial part of Mr. Hayhurst's position statement is reproduced below. You can read all of it here; I don't want to waste space on the lighter-than-popcorn parts:
Born of mis-information, built on mistakes, Iraq is a questionable war gone bad.
No, it was never a "questionable war;" it was, from the day the Bush regime first started promoting it (Sept. 12, 2001, if not earlier), nothing more or less than a criminal act.
But it is the war we made in a distant place with people we are now beholden to. We need leaders who will not shrink from this harsh reality. We need leaders who will live up to the values we profess, strive to find a path that protects America's interests, and refuse to flinch as we find a way to bring this mission to an end.
I must interrupt this drizzle of crapola to ask: what the hell does any of this mean? "Beholden to?" I'm guessing, of course, but I betcha that means no immediate end to the war. "Strive to find a path?" Here's an idea, Dr. Hayhurst: find the path first, then describe it concretely, and then ask me to vote for you. "Refuse to flinch?" Again, a code phrase meaning "stay the course," I'd guess, although he doesn't exactly say so. That's the trouble: he doesn't exactly say anything at all.
Debating the merits of going to war in Iraq must not distract us from this conflict's undeniable, horrific realities. We have troops on the ground and a country on the brink of civil war. Our soldiers need our help, and they need a plan. We need leaders in Washington who will demand a strategy that upholds the integrity and stability of Iraq as well as the security of the United States.

When I am in the U. S. Congress, I will:

* Make sure that everything possible is done to defend the citizens of this great country from any threats - whether external or internal.

* Stand firm in our war against terrorism and extremism.

* Work with the international community to stabilize Iraq, establish measurable goals for concluding the war, and promote the rebuilding of the country with Iraqi workers and Iraqi companies.

* Actively promote the adoption and implementation of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, the most concrete way we can make our nation more secure - a nation left vulnerable by five years or wrangling and inaction.
As far as I can tell, the first and fourth bullets mean: even more Department of Homeland Security, TSA, and the rest of the Security State apparatus. Second and third bullets: stay the course, with maybe some marginal tinkering with the details.

Not that any of this matters; Marky Mark's going to get elected yet again. And since Dr. Hayhurst is unwilling to say anything that the Soudermeister couldn't say pretty comfortably himself -- and tries to be sly about it -- there's no way I can vote for him. Not even to hurt Marky's feelings. And believe me, I'd walk far out of my way for a chance to hurt his feelings. As it is, I simply won't be voting in that particular race. In this way, my vote will have exactly the same effect on matters that it always does: none.


Craig said...

I see your post has been linked to by a certain local blogger who goes on to refer to you as a "leftard".

Here's a hint: He's Angry, he's White, and he's none too Bright.

Anyway, I've made a conscious choice to avoid said blogger's site, but that darn Mike Sylvester made me go over there and read something, so while I was there I happen to a link to this post.

I'm still not sure how the adjective "left" would be appropriately used to describe someone who used to attend Operation Rescue rallies.

Then again, I have a functioning cerebellum.

lemming said...

I am still, in all seriousness, trying to understand this war, our reasons for fighting, etc. I hope and believe, with all due passion, that I will one day understand.

Bartleby said...

Craig: Oh, yes, Spice Boy's truly a legend in his own mind. Let me go out on a limb here, with a wild prediction: he hasn't acknowledged the plagiarism you called him on yet, has he?

Nor will he ever.

As for the "left" part of "leftard:" you're quite correct, it isn't particularly applicable. But then, it has seemed to me for the past couple of decades that the right-left paradigm has been growing less and less useful as shorthand for coherent political philosophies. I expect there's a post in that somewhere that I would write, if I weren't so busy slacking.

lemming: I am very far from claiming to have a coherent explanation for the current horror. I think that you, with your education, are much better-qualified to explain these things. It does seem to me that, while we Americans esteem ourselves a peaceful people, since the late 19th century we have been amazingly warlike. I think we have some hard historical truths to accept about ourselves before we can understand our situation clearly.