Nice, Mr. Tobin.

Malcolm X understood something MLK never did, the primacy of economic development of his people. And by that I mean development within the community and by and large by the community. Integration by the very nature of its urgency discouraged an organic and paced development. Add to that the near impossibility of the Black community producing an Amadeo Giannini (did they emigrate?) willing to lend to a man based on the calluses on his hands and you have something very different from the experiences of other immigrant groups.

President Obama once remarked that black mediocrity wasn't as easily tolerated as white mediocrity. He might have something there. Not that it can possibly be legislated against, I'm just saying it might be true.

Anyway, you did good. It's one of your fuller pieces.

They could have done it in 2009, when millions of them took to the streets in demonstrations larger than those that led to the downfall of the shah. Hillary Clinton and O abandoned them, and a brutal repression ensued.

Without question.

The solidarity that event naturally drew from all could have been built upon. I remember thinking to myself that this was a people willing and ready to receive liberty while still possessing a foundation America was losing and that was the nuclear family.

Once again, thank you.

K2, thanks for the tip.

Also, should have linked this piece in my first post: http://www.newgeography.com/content/003702-americ...

It's a worthwhile read and a good site to bookmark.

Continuing good wishes for your health.

Lt., thanks for the links and take care.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

I don't think President Bush lied to us, I think he thought the weapons were there. When they didn't materialize or they couldn't be found, it was a devastating blow to his cause, which did include, because it became his pivot, democratizing Iraq.

He might have been able to salvage much if he would have had either the desire or the capacity to communicate with the American people with something more meaningful than a sort of shrug of the shoulders acceptance.

The damage he did by what Haass has described as "the subject of invasion is closed," is sizable should we ever really need to pre-empt.

President Obama is not a fully formed man-cum-leader, his background, his choices, preclude that. I didn't vote for him because it was and remains obvious he's in over his head. It seemed and remains so to me (beginning with his appointment of Holder) that he, and his wife both have an axe to grind against the US. But I was glad for the African Americans who did vote for him because they were so happy when he was elected and I can only imagine what that full beam of daylight meant to them.

The Republican Party has to be held accountable for the invasion. It doesn't have to do penance, after all a mistake isn't venal but I, and I think many other people too, have to have confidence that those that need to have undergone a thorough examination of conscience.

Lt, to say thank you is less than cheap but I can't find better words. What I can say is that I'm quite a good baker, am working on a focaccia right now and I wish that I could send you a warm and grafetul slice of it.

It was a mistake to invade Iraq. As Haass put it, it was a poor plan, poorly executed. We didn't have to invade, we chose to.

A co-worker helped me understand what a mistake it was. Once in and even realizing it was a mistake, we did have a duty to leave Iraq in as good condition as possible so I was in no hurry to withdraw forces in advance of that.

My responsibility, as a citizen and to the best of my ability, is to protect our servicemen and our treasury from the misuse of force and to vote against any man or woman who has designs of nation building behind the use of force.

President Bush is wrong. A leader is not judged by his convictions he is judged by performance and results. He refers, in crutch-like manner, to the unconditional love of his father, almost, it seems, as a tacit admission that his involvement of the US in a war of choice, didn't go quite as he planned.

It's over but vigilance as it relates to any use of force is not.

Here, let me give you what is rightfully yours: You're right, it wasn't a promise.

Rationale may be a pejorative to you but to me it accurately describes the position of the assumption of the need to got to war. Your objection to the use of the word is defensive; the other points in that paragraph are melodramatic and mostly adhom.

Permission to invade does not equal necessity to invade, to occupy for several years.

You state I proceed from premises I never laid down and then proceeded from. You cannot defend the invasion.

I'll give you the last word and of course, you're right again, I don't have a crystal ball.

I won't be voting for any of your candidates but that doesn't mean others won't.

Capitalism is amoral, anyone who says otherwise isn't properly advising on the subject.

Mr. Joseph understood that capitalism can undermine the family just as easily as socialism can, maybe more easily.

Government has always allied itself with commerce. As far back as the Egyptians there was a rudimentary Workers' Compensation law. They even insured their phalluses. Must have been a lot of half-dressed labor going on.

You can't convince the general population of what it knows isn't true. There has never been any such thing as a truly free market. It's always had some form of support or protection. It's up to the GOP to make that plain and show the difference between cooperation and malfeasance.

Obviously he didn't promise WMD, he used it as the rationale for War which is equal to or greater than a promise. And I'm not using it to deflect from PO's broken promises. I mention it so Peter Wehner is not allowed to pretend the previous Administration didn't wreak havoc on the Country.

And there are many monstrous despots out there to remove.

The GOP can't run from the position it placed us in by taking us to War. I don't think you understand how that destabilized us and Bush, who is touchy on this subject, can't credibly claim that a Leader is judged by the convictions he holds. That's much too convenient, showing an ease of moving on that is a serious spiritual defect.

Stop this stupid pursuit of Obama. However satisfying to you, it's too common and it allows conservatives to pretend to a righteousness only they believe they possess. Whatever his lawlessness it's no worse a contravention of the Constitution than Iran Contra and the thousands of shredded documents. You have no moral ascendancy and that's what you need.

I don't post regularly at Commentary, though I have big-footed here these last few days. Tomorrow I'll be gone, returning months later, as is my wont.

In the meantime, if you don't want to lose the Country to 10 years of Democrat rule then get down to the hard work of governing and stop supporting candidates who loathe governing but love the Fed pension.

Good and decent conservatives like Kesler at Clairemont, Olsen at NRO, have tried to help you see your own defects but you refuse to acknowledge them. So be it. You won't win again until you do a thorough examination of conscience. It doesn't need to be public but it does need to be apparent.

Sir Keith Joseph's speech at Edgbaston remains an inspiring read.

Would it not now be better to approach the public, who know that economics is not everything, as whole men rather than economic men? Should we not deal with matters which concern the nation; respect for other people and for law, the welfare of young people, the state of family life, the moral welfare of all the people, cultural values, public-spiritedness or its lack, national defence, the tone of national life? These are at the centre of the public's concern. The economic situation is not an independent variable; it reflects the state of political life, the degree to which people are aware of realities, and the climate of opinion. You will only have a healthy economy in a sound body politic.

In the same way, our Tory approach to economics as party, as a tradition reflects our total approach to life and society .Our approach emphasises liberties, decentralised power, individual responsibility and interdependence. It differs substantially from that of Socialists. I am not talking about people who happen to vote socialist, but the active Socialist members and the socialist intellectuals, those who have shaped current fashions regarding the economy, education, the arts, social welfare, the family.
And the opposite of socialist is not capitalist. Our party is older than capitalism, and wider than any class. It grew up in the first place out of concern for liberties, traditions and morals. It has evolved a good deal in the past three centuries yet it has retained its essential character; its area of concern is the whole of public life and all matters which should be of public interest down to the treatment of every man, woman and child.

The most important phrase in that quote is that the opposite of socialist is not capitalist.
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/101830