Depends on who writes the history. 

But no one in Iraq attacked the homeland (embassies are still being attacked btw).  And Al Qaeda in Iraq today is overwhelmingly made up of Iraqis who were not part of Al Qaeda before we went in.  That's also something to keep in mind.

As for congress, they merely passed the buck.  Those who stood up were losing their seats, and congress decided to let the president make the call, which is different than congress backing the president's assessment.  Cowardly and wrong, but not a backing.

Also, many did make arguments against going in while passing the buck.  That too should be recognized. 

Bush is nothing like Turman.  Bush is too flawed, and has committed too many errors to ever be seen in that way.  I know it is popular among supporters to hope, but a serious and objective look at the last eight years shows that there is no comparison between the two. 

Now, a quick internet search:

May 2, 2008

The U.S. State Department released its “Country Reports on Terrorism” for 2007 this week. The congressionally-mandated report highlights a disturbing global trend: Al Qaeda and its associated networks are strengthening and expanding.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/05/clear_warning.html

April 30, 2008

US report says al-Qaida gaining strength

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/30/state-department-al-qaida_n_99430.html

State Department: Al Qaeda gaining strength

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/8766

U.S. Warns Of Stronger Al-Qaeda
Administration Report Cites Havens in Pakistan

By Spencer S. Hsu and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 12, 2007; A01

Six years after the Bush administration declared war on al-Qaeda, the terrorist network is gaining strength and has established a safe haven in remote tribal areas of western Pakistan for training and planning attacks, according to a new Bush administration intelligence report to be discussed today at a White House meeting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/11/AR2007071102443_pf.html

al-Qaida Has Rebuilt, U.S. Intel Warns

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QALM9G2&show_article=1

"...congress decided to let the president.."    Not true!  I can recall, and will cut & paste to document if necessary - but it seems tedious,  many rousing speeches by Dems on the House and Senate floor calling for immediate action to prevent Sadam from supporting terrorists and possibly assisting them with material to allow them to attack us.  If you are writing history in any other way, you are a revisionist.

"...many did make arguments against going in.."    Not true!   Who are these "many"?  I cannot recall "many".    All the uproar by "many" was long after the fact and a great example of arm-chair quarterbacking and piling on.

Bush vs. Truman.  Like mine, this is just your opinion.  I like my opinion better.

The report released May 2, was written in February.   Like I said, I can find no legitimate estimate within the last 6 months.   The report the Washington Post refers to apparently does not quantify the relative strength of Al Quaeda, only stating that they are "rebuilding" in some desolate regions in Pakistan.   (By the way, those rat dens have recently been attacked by coalition forces with significant success).

None of what you say has any impact on my core opinion that there has been much "overkill" of Bush, that he acted with honorable intentions, and that history will correct this shameful treatment.

hiroad....you will always see the davis clan use out-dated material in their agenda. Remember, the terror report he references is 2007 information "just released"... last spring....

"May 2, 2008

The U.S. State Department released its "Country Reports on Terrorism" for 2007 this week. The congressionally-mandated report highlights a disturbing global trend: Al Qaeda and its associated networks are strengthening and expanding."

How about something a little more recent by the messiah itself: September 04, 2008:

"The troop surge in Iraq has been more successful than anyone could have imagined, Barack Obama conceded Thursday in his first-ever interview on FOX News' "The O'Reilly Factor."

As recently as July, the Democratic presidential candidate declined to rate the surge a success, but said it had helped reduce violence in the country. On Thursday, Obama acknowledged the 2007 increase in U.S. troops has benefited the Iraqi people. 

"I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated," Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. "I've already said it's succeeded beyond our wildest dreams."

That's current.

Nothing's changed for the better in the last six months.  As they don't do monthly reports, your stipulation is meaningless.  The last report is what we have.  And the new on is not likely to be better.  Nothing has happened that would suggest anything has changed.  BTW, look up CIA report.  They report on the relative strength.

And no, see snopes.  Most of the democrat quotes are taken out of context.  They report the specifics.  I know such is an accept tactic, but the truth is the thruth.  Kerry even stated in his speech that he would oppose the president if the prersident went in absent the UN.  You can google that as well. 

Nor do I care squat for Bush's intentions.  Having good intentions doesn't make a reckless and wrong policy any better.  Nor does it justify his deceptions. 

Nor does it matter which opinion you like better.    There is just no objective way to put Bush in the same class as Turman, then or now.  Sorry.