McCain is a decent human being....

... perhaps too decent to be President?

I've heard it said before by one of my Intellectual Fathers, Dennis Prager, "There are two types of people in the world, the decent and the indecent." Though, he was quoting his friend Victor Frankl, I learned it from Dennis. Dennis also taught me that sometimes you must confront violent evil with violent good. And although Barack Obama may not fall on the "evil" side, he would unwittingly breed an environment for evil to flourish. And violence is out of the equation, so what to do? John McCain carries with him an old-fashioned, compassionate, conservative, goodness-centered nature. I love him for that. Perhaps his compassion is also his greatest weakness, because it precludes him resorting to the necessary underhanded tactics to win favor in a political race. He is mindful of his position and who he represents. For John McCain, this race is not about ego, it is not about winning “at any cost”, especially the cost of his integrity and that of the office. Obama, on the other hand, is all ego. He is more personality, than substance. He is more driven to make a difference, than to serve a cause. 

Perhaps a more effective tactic for McCain's campaign from the beginning would have been, not to treat Obama as an equal, but as an underling. Isn’t that the perception of McCain’s greatest liability, his age? To use this perception as his strength could have congealed this election for him earlier on. Like in Lord of the Rings, everyone loves Gandalf! He should have related to Obama as an inexperienced naïve youngster requiring the tempered hand experience of the wise sage-like father. Instead, he put him on even footing and has given up his staff. And now, alas, the hour is late; and the shadows grow long. It seems the white-hair wizard has fallen to The Dark One. But is this movie really over yet? As I recall, Gandalf always comes riding up at the very last moment to save the day. And through it all he keeps his integrity, his decency. We shall see if it comes to that end.

Hailing John McCain!, "Do not go quietly into that good night!"

Obama Becomes More UNclear about his Ties To Socialist Radicals

Ever since he made the scene, I knew there was something fishy about Barack Obama. Then I find out his alignment with Radical Socialist people and groups in this country and how he got his start into politics.  It seems to me, he is a smooth talker but a dirty-walker. (To bite from a MadTV skit) He speaks with that beautiful robust voice, those powerfully cadenced sentences, and says exactly what all people want to hear. That we want a world with no poverty, with no violence, with no despair, and with no troubles. And the fact that he is of minority racial decent, only add to his appeal for the well-meaning or rather "guilt ridden" majority of this country, who find that part of our history so shameful. Of course everyone gets impressed with well-spoken platitudes; Ideas like Hope, Change, and Fairness.  It appeals to the human psyche. He sounds like a preacher. Only, he's not a preacher. He sounds like he has got it all worked out. Only, he hasn't got it all worked out. He sounds like an American patriot. Only... well, YOU be the judge.

On his political alignment with unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, Obama again announces his desire to be "absolutely clear" and says nothing.   ReadThis

"Why don't we just clear it up right now," Obama told ABC News' Charlie Gibson in an exclusive interview for World News. "I'll repeat again what I've said many times. This is a guy who engaged in some despicable acts 40 years ago when I was eight years old. By the time I met him, 10 or 15 years ago, he was a college professor of education at the University of Illinois . . . And the notion that somehow he has been involved in my campaign, that he is an adviser of mine, that . . . I've 'palled around with a terrorist', all these statements are made simply to try to score cheap political points."

Why can't he deny his association and alignment to America Haters like Bill Ayers and Rev Wright? Why can’t he just say he disagrees with Bill Ayers political position and he was wrong to remain on a board with such a man? Because he can't. Because he is on the same team, that's why!  

Why also do the media protect, or turn a blind eye to this history?  I think it's because they, like so many others, have been swooned by this "One" with the silver tongue.  Not to mention that he is a huge reservior of news for years to come, if he becomes President.

Obama's attraction to the hard left in this country is not new, just well concealed.   This National Review Story reveals alot of Obama's historical journey toward the White House.  In his own book, Obama admits, he chooses his associations with great care.  Well, if these are the choices in friends and allys that he has carefully chosen, how can we expect better choices as our president?  By the way, I wonder how Barack Obama even got be a Senator, when his past associations would prevent him from a governent secuity job, muchless president of the United States??!!!  

Obama <---> Ayers Relationship

The Speech John McCain Should Give

My friends, I am neither young nor eloquent, handsome nor smooth. But I have lived a long life, much of it in service to America in war and in peace. And I have always stood for straight talk. There has been no time in our nation's recent history when the American people more needed to hear the plain truth from their leaders. A fundamental reason our country faces economic catastrophe is that we have built our lives around running from truths about the American way of life.

Washington has run from the truth. Wall Street has run from the truth. And if we're honest with ourselves, all of us have, in one way or another, run from the truth.

We have accepted the lie that we can live exactly as we want to live, with no concern for the consequences. We have taken the blessings of liberty and prosperity and turned them into a curse of debt slavery - bondage that will be visited on our children, and our children's children, if we don't change.

Everybody has a theory about how we got into this mess, and it's usually one that absolves them and their party from blame. My friends, I'm here to tell you that this crisis is the Republicans' fault. It's the Democrats' fault. It's the fault of every one of us who believed in the fairy tale of a free lunch.

It's time for all Americans to take responsibility for what we've done. It's time for all Americans to pull together to help our families, our neighbors and our country through hard times.

I will not lie to you and tell you that the road ahead will be easy. I will not insult you by giving you simple villains, simple heroes or simplistic solutions. As the song says, everybody wants to get to heaven, but nobody wants to die. My fellow Americans, all of us must sacrifice to endure the trials that history sends our way and to rebuild our nation on a solid foundation of honor, truth and plainspoken virtue.

I know something about sacrifice. And I know something about the way life can break your pride. I was a cocky Navy aviator who thought he was invulnerable. Then I was shot out of the sky and spent five years in prison. That experience did not kill me. It made me stronger. It taught me how much I loved my God, my family and my country - and what trials I could endure for the sake of that love.

I am a patriot. I believe we are a nation of patriots, of men and women who are ready and willing to put country first. But over the years, our leaders, Republican and Democratic, have asked us to do little more than to go shopping, to vote for them and to blame other people for what's wrong with America. Anything to keep us from facing the truth and changing our ways.

As your president, I will ask you to do hard things. I, too, will do hard things for the good of this great nation. Serious times call for serious leadership. In his first speech as prime minister, with his free nation facing the might of Nazi Germany, Winston Churchill refused to mislead the British people about the gravity of their situation. We remember today his words to them: "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat."

Churchill did not give cheap optimism. He, too, had fought and suffered for his nation, both on the battlefield and in Parliament. He had known the joy of victory and the humiliation of defeat. What Churchill, from his incomparable experience, could offer his people was the gold standard of hope. Hope is the conviction that whatever suffering we must go through, goodness and right shall prevail.

Today, when I survey the gathering storm, I am certain that if we, the people, stand together without fear or favor, victory will be ours. I ask you to give me the privilege of leading this great nation in a time when heroes will be made, and all good men and women must come to the aid of their country.

Thank you, and God bless America.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/the_speech_john_mccain_should.html
By Rod Dreher

WARNING! Busy Little Bees... with their backdoor amendments

What the heck is going on? I am livid right now. The passage of this Bail-Out Bill and subsequent market downturn is enough to get us all angry. But how many realize the newest Bill that was passed had over 100 billion dollars added to it along with some amendments UN-RELATED TO THE BAIL-OUT? I know this practice is ages old, but it is wrong; just as is bundling good loans with bad. I know they do it to garner votes. However, a good idea, a good law, should stand on its own.

There are so many additions in this 451 page monstrosity, I lost count. One provides tax credits for biodeisel and another extends depreciation rules for restaurant improvements. But the sneak attack I am focused on is the Mental Illness Insurance Coverage Amendment which, sounds like a good idea on it's face, but should have remained a separate Bill altogether. I find it reprehensible that supporters of this Bill would take advantage of a crucial time-sensitive decision like this Bail-Out Package, and use it to railroad the American people with a health care tax increase on top of it all.

Even Democrat Senator Russell Feingold said, "I strongly support some of the unrelated measures being added to the bailout package. ... But that legislation could have proceeded on its own, without being attached to the emergency bailout bill. "  And Feingold is even a rank-and-file Democrat!

The part that really worries me is the probability that people will exploit this package because it will be easier for people to obtain treatment for a wide range of conditions, including obscure conditions like depression, eating disorders and alcohol and drug abuse. I haven’t read who or what oversight committee will determine a conditions legitimacy. If it up to a simple pen scribble of your doctor, prepare for higher health insurance premiums for everyone. And if we are talking about covering any and all afflictions listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association, you can expect claims for caffeine intoxication, sleep disorders resulting from jet lag, and obesity (overeating disorder). And according to Andrew Sperling, a lobbyist at the National Alliance on Mental Illness, an advocacy group, said, “[the new law] encourages insurers to integrate coverage for mental health care with medical and surgical benefits.” Which could be interpreted by some wily attorney to mean ‘free liposuction for 1/3 of the population’. I realize these are real problems. But most are self-correcting and a modifiable behavior most cases. It’s a slippery slope, one we have seen many times in the past. I sincerely pray this one doesn’t lead off a cliff.

A SPEECH BY OBAMA: Wrong Then; Wrong Now

AND NOW TO STIRUPTHEBLOG!

Some REAL history from The CongressionalRecords official journal of Congress's daily proceedings.  A speech from Barack Obama in 2007.  He was wrong then and he’s wrong now.  [I couldn't resist making some comments here and there]  ;-)

Senator Barack Obmama, Jan 18, 2007,  The United States Senate:

Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly on what is a roiling debate not only in the Senate but across the country and that is the President's policy with respect to Iraq. There are countless reasons the American people have lost confidence in the President's Iraq policy, but chief among them has been the administration's insistence on making promises and assurances about progress and victory that do not appear to be grounded in the reality of the facts. [What would he have Bush do, destroy the morality of the military by admitting mistakes publicly to give surge to the enemy? He did what a leader does, keep it on the down-low until you work it out, and have history judge the outcome.] We have been told we would be greeted as liberators. We have been promised the insurgency was in its last throes. We have been assured again and again that we are making progress and that the Iraqis would soon stand up so we could stand down and our brave sons and daughters could start coming home. We have been asked to wait, we have been asked to be patient, and we have been asked to give the President and the new Iraqi Government 6 more months and then 6 more months after that and then 6 more months after that.

Now, after the loss of more than 3,000 American lives, after spending almost $400 billion after Iraq has descended into civil war [which its backward tribal mentality has been engaged in for 3000 years. And in this age of ubiquitous information and borderless nations, all human beings need to be brought into 21st century.], we have been promised, once again, that the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq will, this time, be well planned, well coordinated, and well supported by the Iraqi Government. This time, we didn't have to wait to find out that none of this seems to be the case [naïve, quitter, microwave dinner stamina]. Already, American military officials have told the New York Times that there is no clear chain of command between Iraqis and U.S. commanders and no real indication that the Iraqis even want such a partnership. Yesterday, Prime Minister al-Maliki, the person whom the President said had brought this plan to us, the man who is supposed to be our partner in chief for this new plan, told foreign journalists that if the United States would only give his Army better weapons and equipment, our soldiers could go home.

The President's decision to move forward with this escalation anyway, despite all evidence and military advice to the contrary, is the terrible consequence of the decision to give him the broad, open-ended authority to wage this war back in 2002. Over 4 years later [Rome wasn’t built in a day], we can't revisit that decision or reverse some of the tragic outcomes, but what we can do is make sure we provide the kind of oversight and constraints on the President this time that we failed to do the last time.

I cannot in good conscience support this escalation. It is a policy which has already been tried and a policy which has failed. Just this morning, I had veterans of the Iraq war [any commanders?] visit my office to explain to me that this surge concept is, in fact, no different from what we have repeatedly tried, but with 20,000 troops we will not in any imaginable way be able to accomplish any new progress.

The fact is that we have tried this road before. In the end, no amount of American forces can solve the political differences that lie at the heart of somebody else's civil war [right, but only by removing the malignant threat of terrorist groups through force can an environment of “hope” be established. For humanitarian efforts to come in Educate, Liberate, and Procreate the good people who are being victimized everyday. That’s how strong tolerant cultures are transformed from a hate-filled brainwashed one into one able to contribute to medicine, engineering, or just the human race in general with more than just a new kind of road-side bomb.] As the President's own military commanders have said, escalation only prevents the Iraqis from taking more responsibility for their own future. It is even eroding our efforts in the wider war on terror as some of the extra soldiers will come directly from Afghanistan where the Taliban has become resurgent.

The President has offered no evidence that more U.S. troops will be able to pressure Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds toward the necessary political settlement, and he has attached no consequences to his plan should the Iraqis fail to make progress [and if the US does as Obama suggests, these groups can all go back to their peaceful benevolent ways. There will be no more bloodshed or ethnic cleansing, and I am sure Usama Bin Laden, Abdelkarim Hussein Mohamed Al-Nasser, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, and Jamel Ahmed Mohammed Ali Al-Badawi will all go back to their old jobs of selling figs and used cars somewhere in Mosul]. In fact, just last week, when I repeatedly asked Secretary Rice what would happen if the Iraqi Government failed to meet the benchmarks the President has called for and says are an integral part of their rationale for escalation, she couldn't give me an answer. When I asked her if there were any circumstances whatsoever in which we would tell the Iraqis that their failure to make progress means the end of our military commitment, she could not give me an answer. This is simply not good enough. When you ask how many more months and how many more dollars and how many more lives it will take to end the policy that everyone now knows has not succeeded, "I don't know" isn't good enough. [and I suppose Obama “knows” the consequences for withdrawing without succeeding in Iraq?]

Over the past 4 years, we have given this administration every chance to get this right, and they have disappointed us many times. But ultimately it is our brave men and women in uniform and their families who bear the greatest burden for these mistakes. They have performed in an exemplary fashion. At no stage have they faltered in the mission that has been presented to them. [these brave men and women have chosen to give their lives to the cause of America, which is Liberty, In God We Trust, and Freedom of Choice (among others). How can he presume to speak about the their “burden”? It is THEIR CHOICE that enables us all to even HAVE a voice!]

Unfortunately, the strategy, the tactics, and the mission itself have been flawed. That is why Congress now has the duty to prevent even more mistakes and bring this war to a responsible end. That is why I plan to introduce legislation which I believe will stop the escalation of this war by placing a cap on the number of soldiers in Iraq [thus lowering the likelihood of the removal of the terrorists hold on Iraq]. I wish to emphasize that I am not unique in taking this approach. I know Senator Dodd has crafted similar legislation. Senator Clinton, I believe, yesterday indicated she shared similar views. The cap would not affect the money spent on the war or on our troops, but it would write into law that the number of U.S. forces in Iraq should not exceed the number that were there on January 10, 2007, the day the President announced his escalation policy.

This measure would stop the escalation of the war in Iraq, but it is my belief that simply opposing the surge is not good enough. [because if it works, the Democratic Party could find itself on the wrong end of the rope. Well, look at that, it did work!] If we truly believe the only solution in Iraq is a political one--and I fervently believe that--if we believe a phased redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq is the best--perhaps only--leverage we have to force a settlement between the country's warring factions, then we should act on that. That is why the second part of my legislation is a plan for phased redeployment that I called for in a speech in Chicago 2 months ago. It is a responsible plan that protects American troops without causing Iraq to suddenly descend into chaos. The President must announce to the Iraqi people that, within 2 to 4 months, under this plan, U.S. policy will include a gradual and substantial reduction in U.S. forces. The President should then work with our military commanders to map out the best plan for such a redeployment and determine precise levels and dates.

Drawing down our troops in Iraq will put pressure on Iraqis to arrive at the political settlement that is needed and allow us to redeploy additional troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region, as well as bring some back home. The forces redeployed elsewhere in the region could then help to prevent the conflict in Iraq from becoming a wider war, something that every international observer is beginning to worry about. It will also reassure our allies in the gulf. It will allow our troops to strike directly at al-Qaida wherever it may exist and demonstrate to international terrorist organizations that they have not driven us from the region [“no, you’ve only driven us from Iraq, so if you just wait it out in a cave somewhere, you can return when we’re gone”].

My plan would couple this phased redeployment with an enhanced effort to train Iraqi security forces and would expand the number of our personnel--especially special forces--who are deployed with Iraqis as unit advisers and would finally link continued economic aid in Iraq with the existence of tangible progress toward reducing sectarian violence and reaching a political settlement.

One final aspect of this plan that I believe is critical is it would call for the engagement by the United States of a regional conference with other countries that are involved in the Middle East--particularly our allies but including Syria and Iran--to find a solution to the war in Iraq. [is he kidding? Just what would top sponsors of organized terror bring to this table, yellow cake?] We have to realize that neither Iran nor Syria wants to see the security vacuum in Iraq filled with chaos, terrorism, refugees, and violence [from some OTHER gang, oh no, that’s Iran’s job!], as it could have a destabilizing effect throughout the entire region and within their own countries [yes, best to go back to business as usual.. they bomb stuff, the rest of the world report on it]. So as odious as the behavior of those regimes may be at times, it is important that we include them in a broader conversation about how we can stabilize Iraq. [This is the kind of naiveté that Obama dangerously reveals. Although he likes to speak like him, he’s no Martin Luther King Jr. MLK had a dream, but at least he lived in the REAL world. Obama’s dream is a world of fuzzy bunnies playing nicely with friendly jaguars, near a chocolate stream, with marshmallow pies. Wake up, how many embassies, tankers, planes and buildings do they have to blow up before the left gets it that we don’t live in this world… yet. Perhaps, someday. At least now, under this evil dictator Bush, something is being done in the direction of that dream. It aint pretty, but conflict never is. Persistence is the key to any successful endeavor.]

In closing, let me say this: I have been a consistent and strong opponent of this war. I have also tried to act responsibly in that opposition to ensure that, having made the decision to go into Iraq, we provide our troops, who perform valiantly, the support they need to complete their mission [which Obama will reissue if he becomes President.. resembling something like RETREAT!!]. I have also stated publicly that I think we have both strategic interests and humanitarian responsibilities in ensuring that Iraqi is as stable as possible under the circumstances. [I suppose “The One” would be willing stand guard there catching bullets with his teeth! As long as the job doesn't entail actually going to Iraq.]

Finally, I said publicly that it is my preference not to micromanage the Commander in Chief in the prosecution of war ["but if I must, I must".] Ultimately, I do not believe that is the ideal role for Congress to play [“but once I’m President…”]. But at a certain point, we have to draw a line [How about at Columbia University?  Yes, that should just about do it!]. At a certain point, the American people have to have some confidence that we are not simply going down this blind alley in perpetuity. [Up Next, Obama drafts his next bill; The Iraq War Tax Rebate Plan.  This is where every American gets a hefty government grant to spend on National Defense how he or she sees fit.  We could use the money to build a border fence, or sponsor an American soldier to fight for us, like some 'role playing proxy video game slash feed a hungry child program'. We could send him text messages as to what action to take next. Please! What does the average American know about perpetrating a war?!! Lets leave this to the experts.]

When it comes to the war in Iraq, the time for promises and assurances, for waiting and patience is over. [says Obama and the left, because if success happens on Bush’s watch, they’ll never snag the White House again!] Too many lives have been lost and too many billions have been spent for us to trust the President on another tried-and-failed policy, opposed by generals and experts, opposed by Democrats and Republicans, opposed by Americans and even the Iraqis themselves. It is time to change our policy. It is time to give Iraqis their country back [“time to resurrect Hussein and give him back his gas chambers and rape rooms.”] , and it is time to refocus America's effort on the wider struggle against terror yet to be won. [using US soil as our base of operations? Iraq IS the ideal stronghold for this wider struggle. Our soldiers have expressed time and time again “Just let us win this.” And they will, for the good of all free nations and of all people.]

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=110-s20070118-13&person=400629

THE CASE FOR A STABLE IRAQ

http://www.newser.com/article/d93jdnb80/analysis-stable-iraq-could-transform-middle-east-power-balance.html

Analysis: Stable Iraq could transform Middle East power balance

By ROBERT H. REID | Associated Press | Oct 3, 08 9:54 PM CDT in World

As violence in Iraq recedes, neighboring states are pondering how to deal with an unwieldy country that could re-emerge as a key player along with Saudi Arabia and Iran in one of the world's most strategic regions.

The role of regional power broker may seem far-fetched for Iraq _ a devastated land best known for car bombs, death squads and suicide attackers.

Still, countries of the Middle East cannot ignore the potential role of a resurgent Iraq, a nation of 28 million people, bordering Iran to the east, Syria and Jordan to the west and sitting on one of the world's major pools of oil.

For those reasons, the United States cannot afford to lose focus on Iraq, which will remain a strategic and important country even after the last of the 140,000 American soldiers have gone home.

Clearly Iraq is a long way from re-establishing itself as a major force in the region. In a first step, however, representatives of 35 international oil companies are to meet this month with Iraq's oil minister in London to discuss improving Iraqi gas and oil fields. Fellow Arab countries are talking about upgrading their relations with Iraq.

Iraq is likely to play a significant role in America's Middle East policy for decades _ even as the Pentagon scales down military operations here and ramps them up in Afghanistan.

The Middle East has long confounded forecasters, and the rosy predictions from the Bush administration that Iraq would emerge as a beacon of Western-style democracy in the Arab world have been long discredited.

However unlikely it may seem today, a relatively stable Iraq would have all the cards necessary to emerge as a major player in the Persian Gulf, where Saudi Arabia and Iran are competing for leadership.

Those three countries account for most of the population and most of the oil in the Gulf, which has about 60 percent of the world's proven reserves.

How the three deal with one another will shape the Middle East for decades.

Iraq's vast oil reserves alone should guarantee the country a major regional role.

Current estimates put Iraq's proven oil reserves at 115 billion barrels. But many experts believe that figure could rise by another 70 billion to 80 billion barrels once better security allows for renewed exploration.

If those estimates prove accurate, Iraq would have the world's second-largest proven oil reserves behind Saudi Arabia and ahead of Iran.

As Iran and Saudi Arabia compete for influence in the region, each has a strong interest in using Iraq as leverage against the other.

Neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia can afford to have Iraq throw itself solidly behind the other. Each wants a stable Iraq _ but not one strong enough to threaten its neighbors as when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990.

In competing for influence in Iraq, Iran would seem to have the advantage. Most of Iran's nearly 70 million people are Shiites, the Muslim sect that includes about 60 percent of Iraq's population.

Iran offered asylum to thousands of Iraqi Shiites who fled Saddam's Sunni-dominated regime. Many of them returned home to assume positions of power after the U.S.-led invasion of 2003.

Iran has also cultivated close ties with the Kurds, who along with the Shiites have dominated political life in Iraq since the fall of Saddam.

Despite those advantages, Iran faces major obstacles in building influence in a country with bitter memories of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s and a legacy of centuries of rivalry between Arabs and Persian Iran.

U.S. and Iraqi officials remain convinced Iran is financing and training Shiite extremists, although Tehran denies the allegation. Many Iraqis _ both Shiites and Sunnis _ view their Iranian neighbor with deep suspicion.

At the same time, Iran sees Washington's ties to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and others in the Shiite religious parties as a potential threat.

Other Arab countries fear that Iraq will fall under Iranian domination once the Americans have gone.

Arab pessimists see a dark vision of a Middle East with Iranian clients ruling Iraq, Iranian-backed Hezbollah as the dominant political force in Lebanon and Tehran's Hamas clients running the Palestinian entity.

Nowhere are those fears stronger than in Saudi Arabia, whose geriatric leadership has faced problems in responding to the political changes in Iraq, its northern neighbor.

The Saudis and other Sunni-dominated Arab governments maintain close ties to the United States. But their natural allies in Iraq _ minority Sunnis _ were fighting the Americans for most of the U.S. occupation.

Other Arab governments found it difficult to support the Shiite leadership in Baghdad while Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites were slaughtering each other in the streets.

Sectarian fighting has eased, and thousands of Sunni insurgents turned against al-Qaida and joined forces with the Americans.

Still, Arab governments have been slow to develop full diplomatic relations with Iraq, despite intense American pressure. Iraqis face enormous problems in seeking refuge elsewhere in the Arab world.

Many Iraqis resent the Arab attitude and fear that shunning them only enhances the influence of Iran, which embraced the new Iraqi government.

All these uncertainties will probably encourage Washington to pay close attention to Iraq for years.

"All Americans should be and are proud of the achievements in Iraq and the American role in bringing about the change," U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker said recently.

Losing interest in Iraq, he warned, risks paying "a major long-term price."