More seriously (or not), it seems pretty clear that Bush is worrying about his legacy. Talking about the Israeli/ Palestinian problem is always something that presidents leaving office do to try to one notable feat for posterity. Bush's (awful) nuclear deal with India a few years back was probably motivated by legacy concerns as well. My guess is he was trying to emulate Nixon going to China by brining India in from the cold. The nuclear deal is not the same- going to Tehran would have been, but that seems outside of what this president would ever do.
Take a look at this thoroughly unscientific but very interesting poll of 109 professional historians. 61% say that Bush is the worst ever. Seems like an arguable point: he invaded Iraq and legalized torture. Then again, pat presidents have been involved in ethnic cleansing (think of the Trail of Tears), and Richard Nixon secretly bombed Cambodia.
On the other hand, Isaac Chotiner makes a good point.
Historians tend to grade presidents not purely on their utilitarian impact on the world--instead they look at things like management of the bureacracy, competence, public support, international approval, etc. Under a rating criterion like that, it's not so absurd to think that 43 may in fact be 43/43.
(posted by Ewan)