Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

to little to late?

I'm sorry it's happening, of course," Bush said in a wide-ranging interview with ABC's "World News," which was airing Monday. "Obviously I don't like the idea of people losing jobs, or being worried about their 401(k)s. On the other hand, the American people got to know that we will safeguard the system. I mean, we're in. And if we need to be in more, we will."

On the war in Iraq, Bush said the biggest regret of his presidency was the "intelligence failure" regarding the extent of the Saddam Hussein threat to the United States. With the support of Congress, Bush ordered the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 — a decision largely justified on grounds — later proved false — that Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction.


Asked by Anonymous at 11:11 PM on Dec. 1, 2008 in Politics & Current Events

This question is closed.
Answers (25)
  • If your asking did Bush's acknowledgment is too little to late...well it certainly (IMO) is too little. I personally believe he could have done alot more. I believe that we could have never been involved in our current conflict in Iraq where the "offending" country had no ties to the attacks on 9/11. I believe that the tax breaks Bush gave to the mega corporations in the name of trickle down economics was unfortunate and perhaps he could have done more for the middle and lower socio-economic families. I believe that there were many missed opportunities and now it is too late to do anything about them. The fall out is here. I believe many families are on edge wondering if the next administration is going to be able to make more responsible choices.

    Answer by frogdawg at 11:23 PM on Dec. 1, 2008


    Answer by Anonymous at 11:14 PM on Dec. 1, 2008

  • And the question is?

    Answer by happy2bme7 at 11:20 PM on Dec. 1, 2008

  • All intelligence including UN and US led inspection teams said that Suddam DID NOT have WMD. Bush in total arrogance decided they did anyway, all evidence to the contrary, disregarded intelligence and invaded Iraq. There was not an intelligence failure, there was a BUSH failure! Now Bush is not totally to blame for the recession America is in, but he sure didn't help any. It's too late to do much good getting rid of him now. President-Elect Obama is going to have a several massive problems greeting him the first day in office.

    Answer by Anonymous at 11:21 PM on Dec. 1, 2008

  • WAY too little TOO late.

    Answer by Anonymous at 12:06 AM on Dec. 2, 2008

  • Our problem stems from the banks! I know this because my husband is self employed the people here in utah that were building homes went out on a limb and decided since the banks were willing to loan money out and give credit,hey its party time everyone decided to build build build,well guess what now all thehomes that were built are still sitting UNOCCUPIED since 2005 its not all our presidents fault,and if you dont believe me try getting a loan through your bank watch how many hoops you have to jump through in order to get your home built! Thats why the government is trying to bail out all these banks,only problem is it WONT work! And notice around you that not many people are building,because of the banks.

    Answer by MarGeee at 12:23 AM on Dec. 2, 2008

  • I know this because my husband an electrical contractor is struggling to get work everyone here in utah is fighting for construction work,and we've mostly been stuck with remodels (thank you lord) were just barely squeaking by our mortgage is behind most of the time,and were continually getting shutoff notices becasue when we do get paid when work finally comes in,we have to pay three or four months worth of bills,then work is gone again and its back to the same ole again.

    Answer by MarGeee at 12:23 AM on Dec. 2, 2008

  • Sorry, but I was watching the speeches and I remember clearly that it was the MEDIA that INVENTED the WMDs being the reason to move against Saddam Hussein. Or rather, they pretended that WMDs HAD BEEN the reason to do it once our troops were there for a while and not finding WMDs. Perhaps you can recall all the talk from the White House AND in the UN about Saddam's TWELVE-YEAR-LONG violations of UN resolution after resolution and UN sanction after sanction. And the only reason France and Russia made a stink and caused it to look like Bush was moving unilaterally was because (as we discovered months later, and the media never highlighted it) those two countries had been illegally supplying weapons to Iraq despite the UN sanctions. ... remember??

    Answer by waldorfmom at 12:58 AM on Dec. 2, 2008

  • Bush took us to war with the support of the Congress they could have said no he could not have sent troops and fought a war without them. Clinton voted for it and she was married to a former President who also said Saddam Hussien was a threat. The President and Congress made the best decision they could based on the information they had.

    Waldorfmom makes excellent points. If anyone took the time to read about the event before the war they would see there were valid reasons. Had the war gone smoothly there would be no negative talk about it. Like all wars this one was messy not nearly as messy as most fought but messy and is taking time. I hate war but I hate pacifism more.


    Answer by Anonymous at 1:53 AM on Dec. 2, 2008

  • did u see Bush speech yesterday or teh day before where he said the above posted by the op. the man apoligized and admitted being wrong and you still want to blame others. yes congress approved because bush lied and because of it to many soldiers died.

    Answer by Anonymous at 9:49 AM on Dec. 2, 2008