Analysis: All the President's nuances: what did Bush really mean?

Tuesday's State of the Union address repays closer study

Resolute yet caring. Moral yet compassionate. Conscious of his duty to the world, as well as to his own people. That was the image George Bush wanted to project on Tuesday, with war against Iraq perhaps just a few weeks away. And, early domestic reviews show, he largely succeeded.

The annual State of the Union is a declaration of intent, with many ideas that will never be translated into fact, even this year when Mr Bush's Republicans control both houses of Congress. Above all, the State of the Union is a political self-portrait, a prime-time speech in the most flattering setting possible, a piece of theatre when the country pays homage, not so much to the man as to the office of the Presidency.

State of the Union messages are rarely bad, nor should they be, given the small army of speech-writers that work on them for weeks. Mr Bush's was no exception. He has come on mightily as a public speaker in office, above all, since 11 September 2001.

The frat-brat has acquired, contrary to expectations, something close to gravitas. On Tuesday evening he was sombre, exuding determination, as he took his country to the brink of war. Yet Iraq was not his only theme.

From the tax policy to the struggle against Aids, from energy independence to the domestic terrorist threat and aid for drug addicts, Mr Bush covered most of the bases. And on every topic, his words sent a clear political message.

THE ECONOMY

"The economy is not growing fast enough. Jobs are created when the economy grows. The economy grows when Americans have more money to spend and invest, and the best and fairest way to make sure Americans have that money is not to tax it away in the first place."

There, in a nutshell, is the strategy Mr Bush hopes will reinvigorate US growth and reduce unemployment, the two greatest domestic threats to his re-election in November 2004. The President is relying on classic Reagan-style supply-side, "trickle-down" economics. His $670bn (£407bn) tax cut is geared to the wealthy. He is also committed to his earlier income tax cuts. Like Reagan, he is taking a cavalier attitude to the federal deficit, forecast at $200bn this year, before tax cuts and the costs of a possible war with Iraq.

ENERGY POLICY

"Tonight I'm proposing $1.2bn in research so America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered vehicles."

This is a classic example of a policy that may never see the light of day. But the proposal leaves the impression of a President out to dispel the image of him as a man who does not care about the environment and is beholden to the oil industry. It also illustrates Mr Bush's belief that the way out of America's energy squeeze lies in technological advance, rather than conservation.

SOCIAL POLICY

"Our ... goal is to apply the compassion of America to the deepest problems of America."

Mr Bush outlined two proposals, worth $1bn between them, to help children of people in prison, and recovering drug addicts. Again, he stressed the notion of self-help, that the government will help those who help themselves.

Essentially, he has resurrected the slogan of "compassionate conservatism" from his 2000 election campaign. In recent months, the sense has been of less compassion and more conservatism. Mr Bush intends to correct that impression.

AIDS

"I propose the emergency plan for Aids relief, a work of mercy beyond all present international efforts to help the people of Africa."

The Aids initiative could have come straight from the Clinton playbook. Mr Bush is asking Congress for $15bn over the next five years – including $10bn of new money – to tackle Aids in Africa where, he told Americans, 30 million people have the virus, including three million children under 15.

Whether the money materialises is another matter. But Mr Bush's policy signals a genuine desire by this administration, like Mr Clinton's, to help lift Africa from the mire. It could also portend greater American involvement in the Zimbabwe crisis.

MIDDLE EAST

"In the Middle East, we will continue to seek peace between a secure Israel and a democratic Palestine."

And that's it. Just 18 words devoted to the crisis that many believe fuels Islamic terrorism more than any other. In short, expect no major new initiatives from Washington until Iraq is out of the way; if then. No sign of any US pressure on Israel to halt its settlements policy, and another thinly coded demand that Yasser Arafat go.

INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM

"Tonight I am instructing the leaders of the FBI, the CIA, the Homeland Security to develop a Terrorist Threat Integration Centre, to merge and analyse all threat information."

Minutes earlier, Mr Bush had insisted: "We've got the terrorists on the run." But this latest piece of proposed bureaucratic juggling suggests that, despite creation of a 170,000-strong cabinet department for homeland security, America's defences against terrorism are far from watertight. The implication is that the main security agencies are not working as smoothly together as they should.

THE THREAT FROM THE 'AXIS OF EVIL'

"The gravest danger facing America and the world is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, biological and chemical weapons."

In his 2002 State of the Union, the President first identified the "axis of evil". The treatment of its three members is rather different. Mr Bush made clear America has no designs against Iran, pinning his faith in the democratic, secular forces in that country ("The United States supports their aspiration to live in freedom").

North Korea also need not fear US invasion. America, Mr Bush proclaimed, "will not be blackmailed by the Pyongyang regime". In fact, that is happening, as he reiterated his strategy of peaceful diplomatic solution. Which leaves ...

IRAQ

"The day Saddam and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation."

That sentence, addressed to the Iraqi people, was among many underscoring that the US is on the brink of war. Technically, it is possible that President Saddam Hussein can avoid conflict, even at a few minutes to midnight, by handing over everything he has. The onus was on him to do that.

The inspectors were not conducting a "scavenger hunt" across a country the size of California, but trying to verify if the Iraqi regime was disarming. In fact, Mr Bush's words were those of a power whose goal is no longer disarmament, but regime change.

He served notice too that America will act alone on a mission of "liberation", if it must. Many countries, he declared, were ready to join a coalition, but, "the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others". Translated: If the UN dithers, the US will go ahead anyway.

The evidence: "From intelligence sources we know thousands of Iraqi security personnel are hiding documents and materials, sanitising inspection sites, and monitoring the inspectors themselves."

But Mr Bush indirectly acknowledged the central weakness of his case: his failure to show beyond doubt that Iraq still possesses banned weapons, and that – even if it does have them – they constitute an immediate threat to anyone, let alone America, 6,000 miles away.

The best way would be conclusive proof of links between Iraq and al-Qa'ida, something the administration has not managed yet, despite strenuous efforts. On Tuesday, Mr Bush claimed intelligence sources, communications intercepts and statements by captured terrorist suspects "reveal Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including al-Qa'ida".

But allegations, allies say, are not enough. What is needed is proof. On 5 February, in New York, will Colin Powell deliver where George Bush did not? Again, a State of the Union ended in a question bigger than any it answered.