Would anyone wish to argue that the foreign and domestic situations of the United States are the same as when President Bush entered office? The powers of the Presidency are not as they were. The economy is now being changed, both private sector finance and public intervention, with repercussions that will last for years.

All that's required to assure that President Bush's influence on policy in the foreseeable future is a successful terrorist act not long after the next term begins. That will eliminate the police-problem alternative view of terrorism and compel the next President to reinstate everything Bush obtained, and perhaps obtain more. As the current financial situation shows, nothing like panic to cause a change in direction.

Of course, this discussion is not about approval of President Bush, but of his policies.

So in that sense, this review has missed its point. If Cheney were focussed on detail and performance, he would have cared about Katrina sooner. He would not have left a failed strategy in Iraq to continue long after its inadequacy was obvious. He would have fought Rumsfeld's intent to leave Iraq prematurely.

Who has apparently been more influential, the Vice President or Karl Rove?

Only a guess, but perhaps the vice president's job has been to learn of details, but more important, to convert the President's generalities about policies into more specific actions. The memoirs written after 2009 will probably include a number of surprises.

And those memoirs will be considered important because the world in which they're published will remain the world Georgr Bush created among crises.