Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Aug 30, 2004, 10:59 PM   #1
zimv20
macrumors 601
 
zimv20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: chicago
Bush on terror war: "I don't think you can win it"

link

Quote:
in an interview on NBC-TV's "Today" show that was broadcast to coincide with the start of the Republican National Convention in New York, Bush was asked "Can we win?" the war on terror.

"I don't think you can win it," he responded. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."
Quote:
White House spokesman Scott McClellan quickly sought to clarify Bush's statement. McClellan said the president was speaking about winning the war "in the conventional sense."

"I don't think you can expect that there will ever be a formal surrender or a treaty signed like we have in wars past," he told reporters on the way to New Hampshire. "That's what he was talking about."
uh-huh.
__________________
Oct 2011: check out my band's first album @ boxsetauthentic.com
zimv20 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2004, 12:00 AM   #2
Ugg
macrumors 68000
 
Ugg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Penryn
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimv20
link



uh-huh.
terrorism will never be eradicated and although I'm sure he didn't intend to say what he did because it undermines everything his presidency is about. As long as there are disenfranchised people in this world and religious/cultural fundamentalism to back them up, there will always be terrorists. More to the point, until Pakistan, Israel, and the house of saud get their acts together, terrorism will only grow in the ME, not decline.
Ugg is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2004, 01:51 AM   #3
SPG
macrumors 65816
 
SPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In the shadow of the Space Needle.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/8/30/2013/69172
Quote:
The ultimate flip flop

by kos
Tue Aug 31st, 2004 at 00:01:03 GMT

This one wins. Hands down.

Today
"Can we win?" the war on terror, Bush said, "I don't think you can win it.


September 12, 2001:
This battle will take time and resolve.**But make no mistake about it: we will win.

Bush in 2002:
We will win, because of what we love. We will win because we're determined and strong. We will win because we're a nation which holds values dear to our heart. And we refuse to be intimidated by anybody, at any place, at any time. We will win because we want to uphold our duty and obligation to leave America intact and free, so future generations of people, Hispanic or otherwise, can realize dreams, can succeed, can realize their God-given talents. That's what this is all about.


Bush in 2003:
We will prevail. We will win because our cause is just. We will win because we will stay on the offensive. And we will win because you're part of the finest military ever assembled.* And we will prevail because the Iraqis want their freedom.

Bush in April 2004:
We will win this test of wills, and overcome every challenge, because the cause of freedom and security is worth our struggle.

Well then. Bush has given up. His failed presidency has given us a failed hunt for Osama Bin Laden, a failed hunt for Mullah Omar, a failed hunt, and, now, a failed war on terrorism.

Since Bush can't finish this thing off, time to elect a president who will see us through this struggle. While we may disagree on Iraq, there is a real war against a real enemy. And while Bush may have dropped the ball on Al Qaida to wage his optional war against Saddam, Kerry won't.
__________________
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.
SPG is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2004, 02:06 AM   #4
pseudobrit
macrumors 68040
 
pseudobrit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
Send a message via AIM to pseudobrit
I was watching a piece the other day about GW's involvement in his dad's reelection bid. One quote stuck out at me, and I'll paraphrase:

"I thought my dad should have used the popularity from the victory in Iraq and focused on that more and he could have won."

GW has learned from his pop's mistakes.
__________________
Starting with a mistake, a remorseless logician can end up in bedlam
pseudobrit is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2004, 02:12 AM   #5
SPG
macrumors 65816
 
SPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In the shadow of the Space Needle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudobrit
"I thought my dad should have used the popularity from the victory in Iraq and focused on that more and he could have won."

GW has learned from his pop's mistakes.
Maybe he should be campaigning on his dad's gulf war success, the coalition, the low allied casualties, the achievement of predetermined goals as opposed to the quagmire we're in now.
__________________
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.
SPG is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2004, 02:49 AM   #6
IJ Reilly
macrumors P6
 
IJ Reilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Palookaville
You know it's funny. No, it's maddening -- every word John Kerry has ever spoked about Iraq is deconstructed and examined with an electron microscope for signs of contradictions, and then, when Mr. Bush makes glaringly inconsistent statements about minor issues such as whether it matters whether we apprehend Osama Bin Ladin or if the war on terror is winnable, none of these same people even bat an eyelash.

I feel like I've entered another dimension of time and space.
__________________
*The season starts too early and finishes too late and there are too many games in between.
Bill Veeck
IJ Reilly is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2004, 10:36 AM   #7
mactastic
macrumors 68040
 
mactastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colly-fornia
And yet those who scream about Kerry's 'voting for the $87B before voting against it' will gladly accept McClellan's explanation that Bush really meant that no formal surrender is likely. And they won't listen to Kerry's reason for his flip flops.

When will BTTM, Leo, and other who hammer Kerry for his flip flops finally admit that both candidates do it and moveonplease?
__________________
I salute you Sean [Hannity]. I salute you for bravely standing by a man whose only crime, was breaking federal law.
- Stephen Colbert
mactastic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2004, 11:03 AM   #8
IJ Reilly
macrumors P6
 
IJ Reilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Palookaville
This is not a "flip-flop," it is a major contradiction. It goes right to the heart of the difference between the advertising and the product. And where did my "liberal" LA Times run this story? On page A-31, in a political story, which also included this astonishing rebuttal:
Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt accused Democrats of taking the president's comment out of context.

"It's another reason why they have a growing credibility problem with the American people," Schmidt said.
In what "context" does this make sense, Mr. Schmidt?
__________________
*The season starts too early and finishes too late and there are too many games in between.
Bill Veeck
IJ Reilly is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2004, 11:54 AM   #9
zimv20
Thread Starter
macrumors 601
 
zimv20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: chicago
are we to understand that we will also not win the Wars on Poverty and Drugs by getting a signed contract of surrender from the enemy?

i'm ever so disappointed!
__________________
Oct 2011: check out my band's first album @ boxsetauthentic.com
zimv20 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2004, 12:14 PM   #10
mischief
macrumors 68030
 
mischief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Santa Cruz Ca
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimv20
are we to understand that we will also not win the Wars on Poverty and Drugs by getting a signed contract of surrender from the enemy?

i'm ever so disappointed!
To quote George Carlin (again):

" What mechanism do we have, in this counrty to deal with Society's problems?

We declare WAR on it. We don't do anything about it, we just declare war on it."
__________________
Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.
-Frank Herbert
mischief is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2004, 12:23 PM   #11
themadchemist
macrumors 68030
 
themadchemist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chi Town
That's reasonable...But I still hate Bush.

He's not even helping to foster that environment where terror is unacceptable. We ourselves are leading by example and enraging the world (and a whole new generation of terrorists) as we do: A significant amount of our action has bordered state-sponsored terrorism at worst and sheer incompetence at best.
__________________
Sometimes, things get worse before they get better. Sometimes, they get better before they get worse. Almost never do they stay the same.
themadchemist is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2004, 03:19 PM   #12
Lyle
macrumors 68000
 
Lyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Madison, Alabama
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugg
terrorism will never be eradicated...
John Kerry seems to think it will:
Quote:
"Mr. Kerry, who has limited his campaigning this week, was asked at his vacation home in Nantucket whether the war on terror could be won. He replied, 'Absolutely.'"
In the same story, John Edwards is quoted as saying it's "absolutely winnable".
Lyle is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2004, 03:43 PM   #13
themadchemist
macrumors 68030
 
themadchemist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chi Town
The biggest problem with the Dem's ticket is its insatiable desire to please the public. After the Dems have suffered hard from unfair and unflattering sound byte distortions, Kerry and Edwards are doing everything they can to provide the quotes that "feel good." I think in substance, though, they'll do a much better job than Bush.
__________________
Sometimes, things get worse before they get better. Sometimes, they get better before they get worse. Almost never do they stay the same.
themadchemist is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2004, 09:17 PM   #14
Desertrat
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Terlingua, Texas
I'm amazed there has ever been anybody who really thinks that winning the "War on Terror" means an absence of any terroristic acts.

I think part of the trouble is that the US society, generally, thrives on catch-phrase terminology. Doesn't matter if it's bumper-sticker cleverness about politics or the Wendy's "Where's the beef?" ad.

So, anytime somebody tries to give any thoughtful response to some catch-phrase program question, people go to hollering about who meant what by which. The War on Terror stuff's no different from the War on Poverty, insofar as labels vs. reality.

So I'm more into questions about our efforts to date. Have we caught would-be terrorists before they could act. Have we been able to inhibit their planning efforts or acquisition of materiel. That's a lot more important than yousaid/imeant/natternatternatter.

And, no, overall I don't really feel safer, as an individual--but I don't feel any less safe, either. It's possible that terrorist misuse of air travel is less likely. And we oughta scrap the Patriot Act.

Near as I can tell, the only way we'll get some mideasterners to quit wanting to kill us would be to convert to Islam, institute Sharia, and bomb Israel...

'Rat
Desertrat is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2004, 09:49 PM   #15
mactastic
macrumors 68040
 
mactastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colly-fornia
I notice you aren't into the natternatter/he said/i meant until it comes to John Kerry's medals 'Rat. It must be nice to always be above the fray...
__________________
I salute you Sean [Hannity]. I salute you for bravely standing by a man whose only crime, was breaking federal law.
- Stephen Colbert
mactastic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 1, 2004, 09:21 AM   #16
Desertrat
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Terlingua, Texas
Well, excuse you, mac. I asked a fairly simple Kerry-question, based on commentary from a reasonably well-respected person. I accepted the only answer I got.

Look: Somebody asks Greenspan about the weather, it's reasonable to wonder, "What did he mean by that?" An extemporaneous Bushism, there's no way of knowing. If Bush were to amplify some comment, there'd be some understanding, maybe. That's why I stay out of a lot of these he-said/he-meant things. There's just not enough information about what the speaker's context really is, in his own mind.

'Rat
Desertrat is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 1, 2004, 09:22 AM   #17
takao
macrumors 68040
 
takao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Dornbirn/Innsbruck (Austria)
Send a message via ICQ to takao
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desertrat
I think part of the trouble is that the US society, generally, thrives on catch-phrase terminology. Doesn't matter if it's bumper-sticker cleverness about politics or the Wendy's "Where's the beef?" ad.

So, anytime somebody tries to give any thoughtful response to some catch-phrase program question, people go to hollering about who meant what by which. The War on Terror stuff's no different from the War on Poverty, insofar as labels vs. reality.

i wonder when this bumber sticker craziness will take over europe..i haven't seen any of those over here...(and i have problem with associating "wendy's"...my guess: is it fast food ? or some eating-pleasure wrapped in plastics ?)

this whole "phrasen-dreschen" (the german word for the overuse of catch-phrases) is taking over ... as seen at the democratic-republican convention ... truly not the way it should be

(a big WTF slipped my lips when watching the RNC: 1. this whole..deeply disgusting..talking about "we need a strong leader who does what needs to be done" sounds ... 2. childish cheering and booing at command...what is this ? politics or ****ing kindergarten ?)

edit: excuse the expression...but i think it has to be said this way...
__________________
Support Wikileaks

Last edited by takao; Sep 1, 2004 at 09:24 AM.
takao is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 1, 2004, 09:29 AM   #18
skunk
macrumors Demi-God
 
skunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Republic of Ukistan
Quote:
Originally Posted by takao
i wonder when this bumber sticker craziness will take over europe..i haven't seen any of those over here...(and i have problem with associating "wendy's"...my guess: is it fast food ? or some eating-pleasure wrapped in plastics ?)

this whole "phrasen-dreschen" (the german word for the overuse of catch-phrases) is taking over ... as seen at the democratic-republican convention ... truly not the way it should be

(a big WTF slipped my lips when watching the RNC: 1. this whole..deeply disgusting..talking about "we need a strong leader who does what needs to be done" sounds ... 2. childish cheering and booing at command...what is this ? politics or ****ing kindergarten ?)

edit: excuse the expression...but i think it has to be said this way...
I absolutely agree. The whole convention thing - with both parties - is ridiculous from a European perspective.
__________________
"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted the spoons." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
skunk is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 1, 2004, 10:05 AM   #19
mactastic
macrumors 68040
 
mactastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colly-fornia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desertrat
Well, excuse you, mac. I asked a fairly simple Kerry-question, based on commentary from a reasonably well-respected person. I accepted the only answer I got.

Look: Somebody asks Greenspan about the weather, it's reasonable to wonder, "What did he mean by that?" An extemporaneous Bushism, there's no way of knowing. If Bush were to amplify some comment, there'd be some understanding, maybe. That's why I stay out of a lot of these he-said/he-meant things. There's just not enough information about what the speaker's context really is, in his own mind.

'Rat
Look, the reason I called you on that is because the entire Kerry medal flap is a he said/he said issue. You were more than willing to jump into that one with both feet. Then when we start nattering about Bush you get on your high horse and start telling us how you don't go in for the he said/he said stuff. Of course that's after you went for it yourself.

Besides, there were at least two other threads coverning the SVBT flap at the time, you started a third and then complained because you weren't getting much in the way of responses. If you want to know what I thought about the SBVT flap, read through the other threads.

Sort of related: Do you see Kerry as a flip-flopper who tries to be on all sides of an issue? Do you see Bush the same way?
__________________
I salute you Sean [Hannity]. I salute you for bravely standing by a man whose only crime, was breaking federal law.
- Stephen Colbert
mactastic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 1, 2004, 11:32 AM   #20
IJ Reilly
macrumors P6
 
IJ Reilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Palookaville
A perfectly reasonable question, IMO.

I'm still waiting for someone to attempt to explain the President's glaringly contradictory remarks on an issue that's absolutely central to evaluating his presidency, his bid for a second term, and by the way, the future of the nation.
__________________
*The season starts too early and finishes too late and there are too many games in between.
Bill Veeck
IJ Reilly is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 1, 2004, 11:59 AM   #21
zimv20
Thread Starter
macrumors 601
 
zimv20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by IJ Reilly
I'm still waiting for someone to attempt to explain the President's glaringly contradictory remarks on an issue that's absolutely central to evaluating his presidency, his bid for a second term, and by the way, the future of the nation.
easy: he went off script. then the script doctors rushed in, injected him w/ "truth" serom, tightened the straight jacket and put him under 24-hour watch. now the war on terror is again winnable.

i'm waiting for mr. mcclellan to explain that it now means there will be a signed peace treaty with the terorrists.
__________________
Oct 2011: check out my band's first album @ boxsetauthentic.com
zimv20 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 1, 2004, 02:50 PM   #22
themadchemist
macrumors 68030
 
themadchemist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chi Town
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desertrat
I'm amazed there has ever been anybody who really thinks that winning the "War on Terror" means an absence of any terroristic acts.

I think part of the trouble is that the US society, generally, thrives on catch-phrase terminology. Doesn't matter if it's bumper-sticker cleverness about politics or the Wendy's "Where's the beef?" ad.

So, anytime somebody tries to give any thoughtful response to some catch-phrase program question, people go to hollering about who meant what by which. The War on Terror stuff's no different from the War on Poverty, insofar as labels vs. reality.

So I'm more into questions about our efforts to date. Have we caught would-be terrorists before they could act. Have we been able to inhibit their planning efforts or acquisition of materiel. That's a lot more important than yousaid/imeant/natternatternatter.

And, no, overall I don't really feel safer, as an individual--but I don't feel any less safe, either. It's possible that terrorist misuse of air travel is less likely. And we oughta scrap the Patriot Act.

Near as I can tell, the only way we'll get some mideasterners to quit wanting to kill us would be to convert to Islam, institute Sharia, and bomb Israel...

'Rat
I agree with MOST of what you say. I agree that ending terrorist acts for a time period doesn't mean that we have won this so-called war. I hate calling this the "war on terrorism" because wars allow the suspension of certain freedoms, and in an indefinite struggle like this, that would mean an indefinite suspension of those freedoms and an indefinite, significant change to the very idea of liberty in the United States. No, this is a goal to end terrorism, but it isn't a goal, as you say, whose accomplishment can be measured in the lack of terrorist attacks.

I disagree with your assertion that it's long-term accomplishment can be measured by the thwarting of specific groups or specific people. Don't get me wrong, this must be done, but it's only a short-term (if never-ending) strategy. For enduring peace, we must seek to resolve the issues that motivate terrorism. These are, as I have said in other threads, complex socioeconomic and sociopolitical concerns of international scope--They will be difficult to solve, but in their resolution lies the success we so ardently crave.

Your off-handed non-sequitur that we all have to convert to Islam to keep those "mideasterners" (sic) from attacking us is somewhat offensive. Maybe the key is to allow them to flourish without vicious sanctions that plunge the average citizen into poverty; without unnecessary, unjustified wars that kill thousands of their civilians; and especially without an obtrusive and inconsistent foreign policy that makes it impossible for any nation to either predict our actions or trust our alliance with it.

There are issues of oppression and antipathy that these nations must resolve, as well, to stem the problem, but we cannot always bring about those changes with a stick. Moreover, while we need to strongly encourage (and occassionally force) the reform of wayward nations, we need to look at our wayward actions, as well, and fix those, too. Unless both parties become better citizens of this world, a lasting peace and an absence of terrorism cannot be even approached.
__________________
Sometimes, things get worse before they get better. Sometimes, they get better before they get worse. Almost never do they stay the same.

Last edited by themadchemist; Sep 1, 2004 at 02:52 PM.
themadchemist is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 2, 2004, 06:21 PM   #23
IJ Reilly
macrumors P6
 
IJ Reilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Palookaville
MMFA is charting the number of times the media mentions Bush's "I don't think we can win it" remark against the number of times Teresa Heinz Kerry's "shove it" line turned up.

After three days, guess which one has attracted more media attention?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200409020009
__________________
*The season starts too early and finishes too late and there are too many games in between.
Bill Veeck
IJ Reilly is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 2, 2004, 06:39 PM   #24
Desertrat
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Terlingua, Texas
Sorry, mac, but "both feet" just ain't righteous. My comments have always been rather mild. All in all, the SwiftBoat folks' stuff is about the same as the folks who've raised a ruckus about Dubya's NG doings. Again, I DO have a right to raise a question from time to time--and I'm sure not whooping and hollering against Kerry.

Do I admire Dubya as a paragon of consistency? No. Sure don't. I just assume that when any politician's lips are moving, he's lying or flip-flopping on an issue, or "mis-stating" or some danged thing. I don't pay a lot of attention to what's said unless it's a new up-and-comer to the arena. Even with a newbie, "Trust but verify."

Over the last twenty or so years, Bush' record is out there; Kerry's record is out there. Doesn't matter what they say now, it won't be that way after the election--no matter which one wins.

Never has been.

madchemist, I should have been more clear: "...some mideasterners..." was meant to refer those now trying to kill us and/or our allies, such as Al Qaida, Hamas, et al. "Some" does not mean "all". In that context, I stand by what I said. When mullahs in the madrassahs are preaching to the young that they should kill the infidel, what else should I believe?

'Rat
Desertrat is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 2, 2004, 07:14 PM   #25
themadchemist
macrumors 68030
 
themadchemist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chi Town
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desertrat
madchemist, I should have been more clear: "...some mideasterners..." was meant to refer those now trying to kill us and/or our allies, such as Al Qaida, Hamas, et al. "Some" does not mean "all". In that context, I stand by what I said. When mullahs in the madrassahs are preaching to the young that they should kill the infidel, what else should I believe?
Yes, there are always mad megalomaniacs who hijack religious imagery to reach some despicable end. However, the mullahs are the ones whose unmitigated hate for the West cannot be quelled. That is, I believe that many, many (thought not all) of the footsoldiers of terror have been prompted to their vocation not out of ardent belief in religious extremism or obsessive hatred of the West's very existence, but rather out of frustration at their own socioeconomic and sociopolitical struggles, in whose creation the West has had a part.

The goal is not to convince the mullahs to cease their vitriolic speech, but rather to undercut the efficacy of that speech by making its call to action irrelevant to those who actually carry out terrorist acts. In other words, if people no longer see a connection between their plight and the actions of the West, they will have much less desire to heed the destructive commands of a few. While religious dogma may ignite to action these thousands of terrorists, it is a simplification to suggest that the dogma itself fuels them. Rather, as I have said, I think these individuals are fueled by an underlying desperation that results from very legitimate concerns about personal welfare. While the methods of redress are unjustifiable, the acts of wrongdoing by Western states is unfair.

If we can mend our mistakes and try at least not to harm the lives of the average citizen of any other country (without extraordinary reason), then we will rob the demagogues of much of their force. That will be one strong, effective step toward dramatically reducing terror. It will not be easy nor will it be simple, but it has the potential to be extremely powerful.
__________________
Sometimes, things get worse before they get better. Sometimes, they get better before they get worse. Almost never do they stay the same.
themadchemist is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bush counterterrorism czar: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld all committed ‘war crimes’ rdowns Politics, Religion, Social Issues 27 May 31, 2014 09:45 AM
Win 8.1 DL from MS site... "for Win 7 users only"? terzinator Windows, Linux & Others on the Mac 2 Nov 19, 2013 01:25 PM
Are there any screens that don't seem to be "warm"/"off white"? Starfyre MacBook Pro 9 Nov 4, 2013 11:33 PM
27" Apple Display as "don't buy" in MR's Buyer's Guide adamjackson Mac Peripherals 17 Apr 7, 2013 10:36 AM
White House abandons war on Terror - Replaces with war on FoxNews. mcrain Politics, Religion, Social Issues 83 Feb 1, 2013 01:20 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:35 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC