[JohnGalt]

He talks like a liberal; he thinks it's noble to die so that Iraq can be free.

That is Wilsonian logic; not conservative logic.

[SolutionsOnly]

Cavuto generally makes a lot of sense in his commentaries - this is no exception. The American Military is accomplishing much good in Iraq and the Middle East. By taking the fight to our enemies and by establishing democracy and a decency in that hellhole we are striking at the source of terrorism - not dancing around the margins.

Cavuto is dead on!

[M. Thatcher]

Not only does Cavuto NOT say what you keep claiming he said, you missed the entire point of his piece, which was to counter one-sided "quagmire" reporting. Literacy. Try it.

[norton]

1 - reason for going there = our national interests.
2 - reason for kicking Saddam's butt = our national interests.
3 - reasons for still being there (in our national interest)
a) suppress resurgance of Baathist infrastructure (insure victory)
b) confront regional al-quada and 'foreign' islamists (round 'em up and take 'em out)
c) show others in the area that we are serious (slap - down)
d) create situation to allow Iraqi people to govern themselves in some less dangerous and reasonably democratic manner (lower odds of another Saddam)
e) create conditions that will encourage locals to join the 21st century and benefit sufficiently from the change as to want it to continue (see "d" above)
4 - beneficial side effects: life definately should be better for the average Iraqi and Iraq might possibly begin to advance out of the dismal hole it's been in under Saddam.

I think Cavuto was talking most about the last item - America is about the only nation on earth that would consider improving the other guy's lot as even one of the goals of invasion and victory. One of very few that would make it a part of policy during an occupation.

Cavuto has a right to his opinions, he has ajob that allows him to express it, and I really doubt he's a liberal.