tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post8706036656594310283..comments2024-02-19T07:24:42.397-08:00Comments on Anglican Curmudgeon: Drawing Courage from ResistanceA. S. Haleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-87192065339353546272009-06-23T22:28:25.021-07:002009-06-23T22:28:25.021-07:00Father Weir, I don't know whether or not you a...Father Weir, I don't know whether or not you are still tracking the comments on this post, but if you are, I would be curious to know your reaction to President Obama's adoption of a "more robust" stance on Iran at the press conference he gave this morning (<a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023882.php" rel="nofollow">here</a> is a quote and a critique).<br /><br />Do you feel that he has changed tack on you, and left you "high and dry" with his new, more aggressive stance? Or do you agree with <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023881.php" rel="nofollow">this question from an Iranian blogger</a> in the midst of it, which Obama in the end was unable to answer definitively?<br /><br />In the final analysis, isn't this commenter correct? Obama's "<a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODQ1OGI2YmU2OThlYjRlZGM4N2YzMjRjY2QyZDJhZmE=" rel="nofollow">Silence Is not Neutrality</a>". I give Obama credit for coming to realize that, although I have to dock him for trying to assure his followers that "we've been entirely consistent . . . in terms of how we've approached this."A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-85258028356587711512009-06-19T13:31:09.752-07:002009-06-19T13:31:09.752-07:00I am not at all surprised that other conservative ...I am not at all surprised that other conservative commentators are highly critical of the President on this issue, but I suspect that some of them want a more confrontational stance that could provoke Iran's current regime into giving us or Israel an excuse to bomb Iran. I agree with Buchanan, perhaps for the first time, that a more cautious approach is wiser.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-47643104196163342852009-06-19T08:17:46.310-07:002009-06-19T08:17:46.310-07:00It is rather fascinating, I agree, Father Weir, to...It is rather fascinating, I agree, Father Weir, to contrast the views of Pat Buchanan with others such as Charles Krauthammer, who thinks Obama <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061803495.html" rel="nofollow">totally misses the point</a> about Iran, or Paul Mirengoff at Power Line, who <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023840.php" rel="nofollow">uses stronger words</a>.<br /><br />What I find even more fascinating is that all the usual Obamabots on the left are silent --- his stance is not getting much backing from that quarter. One wonders why.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-35500586101365266482009-06-19T07:11:31.969-07:002009-06-19T07:11:31.969-07:00It is interesting to note that Pat Buchanan thinks...It is interesting to note that Pat Buchanan thinks that the President's response to the situation in Iran is the right one The situation in Iran is at a very dangerous point and providing the regime with "evidence" that the opposition is a tool of the US could lead to disaster.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-33393163761668042672009-06-17T06:06:27.967-07:002009-06-17T06:06:27.967-07:00Mr. Haley,
You are right that Reagan's respon...Mr. Haley,<br /><br />You are right that Reagan's response to Solidarity was more robust that Obama's response to the resistance movement in Iran. Differences in persoanl style account for some of it, but there are real differences between the two situations. Solidarity represented a much more promising movement than the opposition in Iran today and Obama is right that Iran's foreign would not change much with a change of presidents. The security of Israel may also be an important factor in the muted response from Obama. While the USSR did pose a threat to western Europe, that threat was long-standing and had been countered by US and NATO. I think the threat posed by Iran is real, includes the possibility of the use of terrorist groups rather than Iran's own military, and so far there has been limited success in countering it.<br /><br />I am glad that you brought up Reagan and Solidarity because, in spite of my opposition to many of his policies, I agreed with him on this issue.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-6102030385172393382009-06-16T16:26:49.233-07:002009-06-16T16:26:49.233-07:00Father Weir,
I never made any assumption as to wh...Father Weir,<br /><br />I never made any assumption as to what President Obama's or Prime Minister Brown's <i>personal</i> views were; I am interested the views they express in their respective positions, because of the power which those positions are seen to wield. And in contrast to <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023822.php" rel="nofollow">President Reagan's</a> words of support for Solidarity when they were resisting the Polish government's tyranny, I find President Obama's official words rather insipid. However, <i>chacun à son goût,</i> as the French say. You have your Presidential exemplar, and I have mine.<br /><br />As for Archbishop Peter Akinola, I challenge you to give me one instance where he has (a) presumed the "power" to depose someone who is no longer part of the clergy in the Anglican Church of Nigeria, or (b) wielded political power akin to that wielded by the Iranian mullahs. As far as I can tell, his sole abuse of "power" in the eyes of Anglican liberals consists of supporting the mores of his own country, instead of being a Western-minded liberal. (And please --- not that you were going to do so, for I know you require more rigid standards of proof --- let this blog be spared from any of the undocumented and unsubstantiated charges that Archbishop Akinola had anything to do with certain riots and burnings that occur between Muslims and Christians on almost a daily basis in his country. In the first place, the particular charges I have seen leveled against him have never been supported by any responsible kinds of proof, but second, and far more important, they were <i>one-time</i> charges that smack of attempted slurs rather than of any kind of systematic abuse of power --- which would be substantiated by evidence of repeated incidents.)A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-47029175198264341102009-06-16T13:42:11.552-07:002009-06-16T13:42:11.552-07:00Mr. Haley,
I think the public statements of electe...Mr. Haley,<br />I think the public statements of elected and appointed government officials cannot be assumed to be their own personal views,much less those of the members of the party to which they belong. I did note, however,in the President's remarks that he was concerend about the violent response to peaceful demonstrators - hardly sign that he was nonplussed by the demonstrators resistance to tyranny.<br /><br />I would remind you that power is being used by all sorts of people in the Anglican Communion. I recall that one of the things that some people say about Arbp Akinola, approvingly, is that he is powerful.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-29630434975833241712009-06-16T10:33:49.332-07:002009-06-16T10:33:49.332-07:00I had in mind reactions like this, Father Weir. Or...I had in mind reactions like <a href="http://volokh.com/posts/1245135912.shtml" rel="nofollow">this</a>, Father Weir. Or <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gFE4gvAEEv39bOJoZmVZHfzqSYhA" rel="nofollow">this</a>. And <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aYNFK5d64GCg" rel="nofollow">this.</a><br /><br />Nor is what we are seeing now <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/barack_obama_and_israel_1.html" rel="nofollow">anything new</a>. <br /><br />In using the word "liberals", of course, I was referring to the liberal figureheads, such as the ones I have linked to above. If you take a position that differs from them, I will welcome seeing your post to that effect on your blog. Here, however, I would prefer to stay with the topic of resistance to power wherever and however it is asserted by those who have no aim but to keep it.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-23898280936338976762009-06-16T09:28:26.722-07:002009-06-16T09:28:26.722-07:00Mr. Haley,
"As we see and read about the mas...Mr. Haley,<br /><br />"As we see and read about the massive crowds gathering in the streets in Teheran, and see how the liberals both home and abroad are nonplussed in the face of such unyielding resistance...." <br /><br />I have not seen or heard any liberals who exhibit this reaction. I am certainly identified as a liberal and am not at all nonplussed, but am glad to see the signs of resistance to tyranny in Iran. I will not draw a parallel to ECUSA's resistance to the opprssion of gay and lesbian brothers and siters, but one might.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.com