...............Then fired the general who said we needed more troops on the ground (shinseki), only to try and take credit 5 years later with the "surge". As Reagan would say, "there he goes again... Shinseki was given his papers more than a year before Iraq, but was allowed to finish his term as a lame duck. It was therefore impossible for his firing to have anything to do whatsoever with his Iraq troop projections. Have to admit, he got about half of Americans to buy his story. Would you rather them believe your highly inaccurate and factually-challenged version of events? The surge was a strategery fathered, championed and persued by Bush, with a lot of help from McCain, at a time when it was not popular to do so. The conventional wisdom in Washington and even at the Pentagon at the time was to cut our losses and throw Iraq to the wolves. Obama or any other politician trying to promote their agenda against the will of congress and the people could take a lesson from him! Seeing as you can't possibly be talking about the invasion of Iraq as being done unilaterally, I will presume you're referring to the Surge. And if your reference was to the Surge, then your point is well taken...you'd rather we didn't do the Surge and have lost Iraq than to give Bush his due for exhibiting the necessary leadership to push the Surge when all others were advocating defeat. Nice.