This is where George W. Bush started his presidency, with an address to a joint session of Congress, one month after his inaugural speech in 2001. "The last time I visited the Capitol, I came to take an oath on the steps of this building," he said. "I pledged to honor our Constitution and laws. And I asked you to join me in setting a tone of civility and respect in Washington.

"I hope America is noticing the difference, because we're making progress. Together, we are changing the tone in the nation's capital. And this spirit of respect and cooperation is vital, because, in the end, we will be judged not only by what we say or how we say it, we will be judged by what we're able to accomplish."

President Bush's legacy will be assessed by many measures, most notably the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But by his own standards set at the start of his time in office, the president has failed to live up to either the tone or the results he promised. The tone in the nation's capital is hardly better than it was as impeachment roiled the final years of Bill Clinton's presidency. With the rare exception of the recent economic stimulus package, respect and cooperation is hard to find in the halls of Congress at the end of the Bush era.

That much was obvious in President Bush's final state of the union speech on Monday. He started by seeking to explain just why the political debate has been so acrimonious. "We have faced hard decisions about peace and war, rising competition in the world economy, and the health and welfare of our citizens," he said. "These issues call for vigorous debate, and I think it's fair to say we've answered that call. Yet history will record that amid our differences, we acted with purpose. And together, we showed the world the power and resilience of American self-government."

That brief telling of the Bush years—marked by joint purpose and resilience—hardly squares with the facts.  Instead, what history may record is the intense partisan warfare over Iraq, tax cuts and domestic spying.

That contentiousness might explain why the president rapidly pivoted to putting pressure on Democrats to fall in line with the modest agenda of his final year in office. "In this election year, let us show our fellow Americans that we recognize our responsibilities and are determined to meet them," he said. "And let us show them that Republicans and Democrats can compete for votes and cooperate for results at the same time."

Instead of offering ground for cooperation, the president continued the pattern he set in the earliest months of his presidency: to insist on cooperation on his terms. His first substantive policy issue was taxes. He warned Democrats that they had to make his tax cuts permanent—something he could have done years ago, rather than waiting until election time to corner his opponents. "Some in Washington argue that letting tax relief expire is not a tax increase," he explained. "Try explaining that to 116 million American taxpayers who would see their taxes rise by an average of $1,800. Others have said they would personally be happy to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm, and I am pleased to report that the IRS accepts both checks and money orders." So much for the civil and respectful tone of debate on taxes.

But what about the subject on which historians will really assess this president: the war in Iraq? On that question, he understandably claimed credit for real military progress, while also hyping up the analysis of political progress in Baghdad. What stood out, however, was the president's continued efforts to tie Iraq to Al Qaeda, the group responsible for the horrors of 9/11 that transformed his entire presidency.

"When we met last year, Al Qaeda had sanctuaries in many areas of Iraq, and their leaders had just offered American forces safe passage out of the country," he said. "Today, it is Al Qaeda that is searching for safe passage. They have been driven from many of the strongholds they once held, and over the past year, we have captured or killed thousands of extremists in Iraq, including hundreds of key Al Qaeda leaders and operatives.

"Last month, Osama bin Laden released a tape in which he railed against Iraqi tribal leaders who have turned on Al Qaeda and admitted that Coalition forces are growing stronger in Iraq.  Ladies and gentlemen, some may deny the surge is working, but among the terrorists there is no doubt.  Al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq, and this enemy will be defeated."

One of the more unfortunate features of Bush's presidency has been the deliberate blurring of lines between the core Al Qaeda leadership and the global movement that was inspired by its campaign of mass murder.

Still, those ubiquitous historians will find that Bush has at least been consistent in his desire to tie together terrorists, dictators and weapons of mass destruction. In that first speech to ongress seven years ago, President Bush made almost no mention of foreign policy—except for this: "Our nation also needs a clear strategy to confront the threats of the 21st century—threats that are more widespread and less certain. They range from terrorists who threaten 
with bombs to tyrants in rogue nations intent upon developing weapons of mass destruction."

At the time, the president was calling for a missile defense system that he still hasn't fully developed or deployed. Instead, he leaves to his successor a terrorist challenge, and a WMD threat, that is far more complex than he could ever have imagined in February 2001.