Bush's legacy will be defined by the right, not the left, and it doesn't look good.

If you look back through recent history, a president's legacy is primarily defined by his side of the aisle. The "major achievements" that build the legacy are generally cited and repeated by his supporters who project their opinions on those legs of support.

(As example, Gerald Ford's Nixon pardon was rewritten as emblematic of this "honest midwesterner who unified the country.")

That's why this unpopular escalation will play a huge part in the assessment of Bush's legacy.

I would argue that in the longer view of legacy, Bush will be judged not so much be on the characteristics of his Iraq policy as the amount of long term political damage that his "persistence" will cause his party.

Iraq/War on Terror will certainly constitute the bolstering evidence of any assessment of the Bush presidency, but I think the tenor of that assessment will be defined more by the personal feelings of those Republicans who may well be out of power for a decade because of him.

When Trent Lott gets to play "wiseman" on the 2016 version of Hardball, how do you think he will assess this presidency?

(I'm still thinking there's going to be a Nixon-like intervention by "respected" Senators, but the fact that John Warner is introducing legislation rather than meeting behind closed doors, tells me that if any such overture has been attempted, it has been rebuffed.

House Republicans are pushing for "more accountability" trying to force monthly reports from the White House. (It's tied to Bush's "bipartisan (Lieberman) committee" so it may just be a ploy.)

Can anyone stop this president? Will his party ever forgive him?)