STORM2K

Time Will Tell

Wednesday, April 07, 2004

By Neil Cavuto



I know that I obsess about time. How quickly it passes. How quickly it changes. But it's good to watch time. It's good to know time. And sometimes, it's good to sit back and appreciate time. Time gives you perspective.

You know, these days, a lot of us don't have much time and we get impatient if things take too much time.

Take Iraq. To hear some news commentators tell it, it's a waste of time. Sort of like that Vietnam time. All this, based on 12 months of time.

What would 24-hour news channels said of George Washington (search) 12 months into his war with the British? Would they call it a quagmire too? After all, he hadn't won a single battle at that point.

Or Abe Lincoln? If memory serves me right, 12 months into the Civil War, his side was getting its butt kicked. Was his a military boondoggle too?

And would this generation have the patience of the greatest generation after World War II? It took a pretty long time to establish peace and then rebuild Europe. And more than five years to get Japan going again.

How would breathless journalists today have covered those efforts then?

I can hear the news bulletins now. "Tattered Europe on our G.I. Bill."

"Is Japan Worth Fixing?"

And on and on.

It's a good thing news crews didn't follow Ulysses Grant. Or action-cams cover every kamikaze mission long after we vanquished the Japanese. The Civil War might not have turned out the way it did and maybe Japan would still be an enemy.

Time teaches us a lot. And sometimes, it seems to teach us... nothing at all.

Watch Neil Cavuto's Common Sense weekdays at 4 p.m. ET on Your World with Cavuto.




Advertise on FOX News Channel, FOXNews.com and FOX News Radio
Jobs at FOX News Channel.
Internships at FOX News Channel (deadline to apply is FRIDAY, APRIL 9th, 2004).
Terms of use. Privacy Statement. For FOXNews.com comments write to
foxnewsonline@foxnews.com; For FOX News Channel comments write to
comments@foxnews.com
© Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2004 ComStock, Inc.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright 2004 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
All market data delayed 20 minutes.

Except Iraq wasn't a threat, wasn't even worth fighting for and we were lied to about the reasons going to war (or there was a massive intelligence failure -- either way, something didn't work right) and now we are fighting for pretty much no good reason. Oh, but on the plus side focus has left Afghanistan -- you know, where the guy who actually committed 9-11 is and is actually a threat to the US.

The only focus that has been lost on Afganistan is with our news media...

WidreMann wrote:Except Iraq wasn't a threat, wasn't even worth fighting for and we were lied to about the reasons going to war (or there was a massive intelligence failure -- either way, something didn't work right) and now we are fighting for pretty much no good reason. Oh, but on the plus side focus has left Afghanistan -- you know, where the guy who actually committed 9-11 is and is actually a threat to the US.

I see...hmmm. We are fighting Islamic extremist in Iraq. OBL is an Islamic extremist. Al Qaida are Islamic extremist. Seems like the same war to me.

stormchazer wrote:

WidreMann wrote:Except Iraq wasn't a threat, wasn't even worth fighting for and we were lied to about the reasons going to war (or there was a massive intelligence failure -- either way, something didn't work right) and now we are fighting for pretty much no good reason. Oh, but on the plus side focus has left Afghanistan -- you know, where the guy who actually committed 9-11 is and is actually a threat to the US.

I see...hmmm. We are fighting Islamic extremist in Iraq. OBL is an Islamic extremist. Al Qaida are Islamic extremist. Seems like the same war to me.

The same type of silly logic Lindaloo used to prove I was a communist. It happens that Al Qaeda and Iraq weren't connected. OBL and Saddam didn't even like each other and they certainly weren't working together. The fact that they are both Arabs and both aren't friendly to the US doesn't mean that they were working together. And it certainly doesn't mean that Saddam was an imminent threat or that he had WMDs.

Were there not terrorist training camps in Iraq?

Did not sound silly to me. But MF said it best in another thread. So I will leave it at that!

This original post does point out that time is critical to the right perspective on things. Just as we were quick to tidy up WTC and memorialize it...we want to tidy up and sanitize all things that clutter up our lives and make us uncomfortable. Truth is, regardless of debate on whether we should have gone into Iraq, we are there. Afghanistan, we are there. History is being written and decisions being made which will bear out wisdom (or lack of it) over the course of time.

There are really very few comparisons one can make about Vietnam and Iraq, but if you choose to make them, you must also remember then that advisors were first sent there in the early 60's and it was not until the mid 70's that we "ran out of Dodge!"

Iraq, for whatever it is today and its impact on us and the region, will evolve over a course of years...maybe decades. A single year is not the right measuring stick.

Stay tuned.

timNms wrote:Were there not terrorist training camps in Iraq?

In the far northern areas of the country where Saddam exerted little influence. In the south or central? No.


Just because there is a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda (or affiliated groups) does not automatically mean a link between SH and Al Qaeda.

I still think that our main focus should've been Afghanistan first to smoke out Osama. If that meant more troops going over there to do that, then so be it. That one I can understand the importance of.

Hoosierwxdude wrote:

timNms wrote:Were there not terrorist training camps in Iraq?

In the far northern areas of the country where Saddam exerted little influence. In the south or central? No.


Just because there is a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda (or affiliated groups) does not automatically mean a link between SH and Al Qaeda.

I did not say there was a connection between Al Q and SH. I was just pointing out that there were terrorist training camps in the country after Widre made this comment:

It happens that Al Qaeda and Iraq weren't connected.

timNms wrote:Were there not terrorist training camps in Iraq?

There were, but they were not in any wy connected to the Iraqi government. Al Qaeda has cells in dozens and dozens of countries-from Germany to the Phillipines to Iraq to Saudi Arabia and even here in the USA. If we waged war against every country where Al Qaeda operatives work, there wouldn't be many other countries left. This is not a justification for Bush's war agenda in any way.

JSpaceman wrote:

timNms wrote:Were there not terrorist training camps in Iraq?

There were, but they were not in any wy connected to the Iraqi government. Al Qaeda has cells in dozens and dozens of countries-from Germany to the Phillipines to Iraq to Saudi Arabia and even here in the USA. If we waged war against every country where Al Qaeda operatives work, there wouldn't be many other countries left. This is not a justification for Bush's war agenda in any way.

You honestly believe Saddam had no knowlege of Al Qaeda working in Iraq?

king of weather wrote:

JSpaceman wrote:

timNms wrote:Were there not terrorist training camps in Iraq?

There were, but they were not in any wy connected to the Iraqi government. Al Qaeda has cells in dozens and dozens of countries-from Germany to the Phillipines to Iraq to Saudi Arabia and even here in the USA. If we waged war against every country where Al Qaeda operatives work, there wouldn't be many other countries left. This is not a justification for Bush's war agenda in any way.

You honestly believe Saddam had no knowlege of Al Qaeda working in Iraq?

He may have had knowledge but he certainly was not in league with them. As someone else pointed out, many of the Al Qaeda operations in Iraq were based in southern parts of the country, where Saddam had less control. There is no REAL connection between Saddam and Al Q, and certainly not anywhere near enough of one to base a war on it. Everyone acknowledges this, even the administration

How can you say that! He gassed the Kurds so we know he had the WMD's. Do the mass graves that we have found not warrant that this man needed to be gone? If Clinton and the UN would have enforced the rules then Saddam would not have had all those years to hide WMD's. He tried to play his cat and mouse games with Bush and failed. He said we would be defeated but guess where he is saying that from now.

Invading Iraq and taking out Saddam was inevitable..the only problem I have is the timing of the operation. We should have put our resources into capturing Osama first instead of fighting 2 wars at once.

george_r_1961 wrote:Invading Iraq and taking out Saddam was inevitable..the onlt problem I have is the timing of the operation. We should have put our resources into capturing Osama first instead of fighting 2 wars at once.

My thoughts exactly. Many assume that I thought Saddam was a nice guy, and that would shouldn't do anything against evil dictators, etc. etc. etc. I disliked, nay, hated Saddam the same as everyone else. I don't think gassing your own people and building 50 gold palaces is a desirable quality in a leader of a major country like Iraq. I think it is very sad and unfortunate that he turned what might have become almost a 1st world country into a repressive hellhole. And I think that at some point we needed to go and clean out Iraq. But I didn't think the time was right. I felt that the issue was forced, and that we were given bad reasons for the war and it was not prosecuted as well as it could have been. This would be Monday morning quarterbacking were it not for the fact that I and others were saying similar things before the war even started. And while I agree that certain European countries not to be named probably had other reasons for not going to war (such as, shall we say, conflicts of interest), I don't think completely dumping the UN and rushing in was the right thing to do. We could have had more support if we had waited and let the inspectors go in. Eventually, Saddam would have resisted, and it would have become clear that he needed to go. Except that way, we would have had much more support and would not have to foot such a large bill. There are, of course, other ways besides this one that we could have dealt with it. As it stands, we rushed in, we pissed off a lot of people (sometimes you have to do the right thing regardless of what others think, but Iraq was not big enough or worth it, IMHO) and now are dealing with unrest. Could we have done it perfectly? Heck no. Even if Bush had waited and gotten world support would all the liberals have shut up? He** no! (I would have, given that I was pretty much on the fence with this one -- unlike many liberals, I only opposed the war on pragmatic/timeline reasons, instead of some fundamental distrust of US actions abroad, or general dislike of war, or concern about a "war for oil", etc.) But could we have done it better and did we know in advance that we could have? I say yes.

End of yet another babbly rant.

Another good rant Widreman! Everyone can do that, the points of view just may be different. I made some good points.

Stephanie wrote:Another good rant Widreman! Everyone can do that, the points of view just may be different. I made some good points.

I agree

I disagree with a lot of the rant, but it was a respectfull rant and well taken