The review is overly charitable and apparently intentionally non-committal. Some of the international insights provide some added value.

This is quality journalism, mainly focused on Bush's foreign policy decisions and what they might mean for the "shreds" of his presidential legacy. A nice balance of critics and defenders' views. Not especially well written, but you can't have everything, I guess.

Not sure what to think. Seems like a relatively shallow rehash of Bush foreign policy, about which it is hard, of course, to be objective. But not impossible, and this article didn't seem to really attempt to be objective I dont think.

One thing I like about this article is it suggests a different perspective than I'm used to. In its favor, it's not a diatribe against all things Western, in fact it tries to defend GWB. All the failings listed we are so familiar with, but when have you read about giving him credit for backing off? That's like reducing the sentence of a 3-time bank robber because he decided not to go ahead with the robbery of a fourth bank. Being unfamiliar with the Daily Star, the Inter Press Service, or Jim Lobe, I hesitate to give it a high rating, but I do it in part in support of more submissions from the offshore press.

Second term might save Bush legacy? How? What did Bush do, except dig himself in deeper. Even treaties that are blatant violations of NPT are called favourable. Support for Israel is called damaging when most commentators call Israel's actions war crimes and cimes against humanity? Not very objective.

Excellent analysis of Bush's legacy and his placement among the worst US presidents in the history of the Republic. Prince Turki al-Faisal condems the US complicity in the murderous Israeli assault on Gaza.