Bush Legacy

First the Boumediene Supreme Court decision, announced yesterday, then this:

AMMAN, Jordan - Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says talks with the United States on a longterm security agreement have reached a "dead end." Al-Maliki says the talks slumped because each side refused the other's demands.

He says the initial framework agreed upon was to have been an accord "between two completely sovereign states." But he says the U.S. proposals "do not take into consideration Iraq's sovereignty."

The prime minister said Friday "this is not acceptable." The American demands "violate Iraqi sovereignty. At the end, we reached a dead end."

Washington and Baghdad have been negotiating behind closed doors a deal that would give U.S. troops legal grounds for an extended stay in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires Dec. 31.

Our Little Prince just can't conceive why his intentions are so misunderstood:

President Bush has admitted to The Times that his gun-slinging rhetoric made the world believe that he was a “guy really anxious for war” in Iraq. He said that his aim now was to leave his successor a legacy of international diplomacy for tackling Iran.

In an exclusive interview, he expressed regret at the bitter divisions over the war and said that he was troubled about how his country had been misunderstood. “I think that in retrospect I could have used a different tone, a different rhetoric.”

I figure, if he can't manage to be understood, with all the press resources at his command, it's because people actually understand well enough what he's demanding, and are just saying NO!

Bush will have a positive legacy only if, by switching Iraq from minority Sunni to majority Shiite rule, beneficial results flow. We are at the point where, the longer we stay, the less likely we'll see those results.

Bush is unlikely to leave a productive long-term legacy. Little princes rarely do.