History might indeed judge George W. Bush as one of the nation's worst presidents, as some people now are quick to predict. However, people shouldn't wager too much on that possibility just yet.

It takes years — perhaps decades — for a president's leadership to be adequately evaluated. Most of that evaluation must be based on the long-term impacts of decisions made during a presidency.

Therefore, for Bush, it will be perhaps a decade or more until he gets what can be construed as a final grade, even regarding his response to such events as the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which changed the course of his administration to an international emphasis from a domestic emphasis, less than 10 months after he took office.

It's much too soon to give a final assessment of Bush's stances regarding Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Russia and a host of other countries that occupied center stage over the past eight years, since events in those countries still are evolving.

It can be said now with certainty that some Bush actions — such as the decision to attack Iraq without a direct provocation first having been committed by that country against the United States or one of its closest allies — damaged America's image in the eyes of many countries. But remaining potential fallout from that current negative opinion of America in some quarters of the world is impossible to predict at this time.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice thus was correct in cautioning those who dislike Bush and what his administration has done from making too hasty of an assessment of the Bush presidency.

"When you look at what this president took on in terms of AIDS relief and foreign assistance to the world, when you look at the number of countries . . . and the number of people that this president has actually liberated — you know, I really am someone who believes that you don't want to pay too much attention to today's headlines," she said.

While she's wrong in suggesting that people shouldn't be paying close attention to current headlines and assessments dealing with the outgoing president, she was correct in urging Americans to keep an open mind about the president's legacy in the broad scope of history. It has yet to be ascertained.

Such open-mindedness should remain in play regarding the economic meltdown, which has haunted the final months of the Bush years.

Unlike what some people might believe, Bush isn't the chief culprit in the economic mess, although administration policies did help open the door to the mess.

It is Rice's opinion that historians of today who currently are judging Bush and his Middle East policies aren't very good historians.

Maybe. Maybe not.

However, it can be convincingly argued, based on evaluations of previous presidents, that it is premature to conclude that Bush will go down in history as one of the worst chief executives, although, again, that might eventually happen.

Regardless, those who are making judgments of the past eight years at this time have created a valid path by which Americans can continue to weigh what Bush has done during his two terms in the White House.

Rice characterized as "ridiculous" claims that history will judge the current administration as one of the worst ever.

Perhaps she's right; perhaps she isn't.

Today's young children and grandchildren will have a better overall perspective of the Bush presidency once they reach adulthood than what the adults of today now have.