George W Bush has changed his approach to the Middle East but, as he heads home from his tour to the region, the question is whether it is too late to make any difference.
The president, who came to power seven long years ago with little knowledge of global affairs, rounded off a marathon trip to a region that more than any other has been at the receiving end of his foreign policy.
For over a week, we have heard from an optimistic president.
But ask White House insiders for a list of concrete achievements from the last eight days, and there are few specifics.
There is a belief that without the president's 48 hours in Jerusalem and Ramallah, there would have been no meeting this week between the Israeli and Palestinian leaders.
On Iran, the Gulf allies share some of the US concerns over the Iranian nuclear issue.
As for democracy? Well, even the White House has to admit that he has not been touring the most liberal countries in the world.
But, again, there is a hope that improving educational standards and the like will help open up these societies over the years.
For many years I watched this president from afar, while reporting from the Middle East.
What has been interesting watching him up close is how, on occasion, his understanding of the issues has seemed far more nuanced than in the past.
I spent four years talking to people who loathe the man.
Palestinians who despair as he criticises their violence and not Israel's occupation - which they believe causes that violence.
Iranians angered as he accuses them of failing to adhere to UN resolutions while never mentioning that Israel has been ignoring UN resolutions for decades.
Iraqis who just shake their heads when he speaks of freedom and democracy in their country.
Lebanese who want him to stop meddling because they are sure it is making things worse, not better.
Balance
On this trip, though, there seems to have been a slight change.
George W Bush has appeared more balanced in his public statements.
He said, in Jerusalem, that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands that began in 1967 must end.
He has stressed that he is not trying to impose solutions, merely create the conditions in which solutions might be possible if the people of the Middle East want to pursue them.
He was genuinely impressed with what he saw as the spirit of ingenuity in the United Arab Emirates (so impressed that one were left wondering whether he had not known much about the UAE before he touched down).
Why has this happened? I wonder if the changes at the White House may have had an impact.
Maybe those with a better grasp of the issues in the state department are finally having their voices heard.
Maybe after so many problems with his Middle East policy, Mr Bush is listening more to the experts around him. It is only speculation.
Of course the Arab newspapers have been critical. "Too little too late," they say.
They probably have a point.
This is a president whose administration has only relatively recently changed its policy towards post-invasion Iraq, and which seems only now to have fully grasped that development and rebuilding civil society are crucial.
As Mr Bush said, in a rare admission on this trip, up until a year ago his administration was making mistakes in Iraq.
Long-term strategy
So ultimately, what was this trip all about?
There is always the chance that it was a smokescreen for something we do not know about. But we will not find out for years.
So, was it about legacy? White House watchers suggest not. And anyway the Arab world, for one, has already decided how Mr Bush will go down in history.
Achievements? Not anything obvious - the Bush strategy is a long term one, which will take years to play out - if Mr Bush's successor decides to continue what he believes he has started.
No, this was probably in the long run more about belief. The belief within the Bush White House that they are finally pursuing policies that might work.
When Mr Bush addressed staff at the US consulate in Jerusalem I am told the president welled up with emotion as he spoke of the importance of what he was trying to do.
He really believes in his strategy. Many will call that naive. A handful may call it visionary.
The reality is that belief alone will not bring peace to the Middle East.
Front Page Features