President Bush's 2006 state of the Union address was distinctive in two quite different ways. It was distinctive,first,for the assurance with which he delivered it. Gone was the stuttering malaprop-prone Bush of old. Here was a fluent and passionate public advocate, whose confidence belied his languishing poll ratings and the policy stalemate he faces at home.

But it was distinctive,second,for what he had to say about energy. Mr Bush has always prided himself on being a Texan and a former oilman. Accurate or not, the image he projected was that of the greedy American, confident that his country was big enough and rich enough to feed his own and his countrymen's gargantuan appetites. The gas-guzzling sports utility vehicles that sustained the US car industry during his first term seemed to symbolise that profligacy.

On Tuesday night, however, he changed his tune. After pledging as expected that the US was in Irag for the duration and insisting that Iran mend it's wicked ways, Mr Bush suddenly introduced a new theme. The United States, he told his unsuspecting audience, had to break it "addiction" to oil. And, sunny optimist though he usually is, he went on to describe US dependence on imported oils "a serious problem".

As with any addiction, acknowledgement that there is a problem is the first step to recovery. So the significance of this moment cannot be overestimated. For the Texan oil president to talk about reining in America's thirst for oil marks a welcome recognition of reality. Whether Mr Bush will draw the necessary conclusion, however, is another matter. He linked his conversation to the continuing insecurity in the middle east. The US, he said, was far too reliant on oil from unstable countries. He said oil imports from the region had to be slashed by 75 percent, and proposed a plan that would see america's cars powered by fuel cells and ethanol made from maize,sugar and grass. He called for a large increase in funding for clean-energy research, including the development of solar and wind energy, cleaner-burning coal and nuclear power.

Mr Bush's concern to reduce dependency on middle east oil was a tacit admission-the only one in his speech-that the miltary intervention in iraq had failed to produce at least one of the desired effects: a large increase in oil production and more secure conditions for its export. He seems to have recognised the aim of achiening energy security by spreading democarcy across the middle east is unattainable, at least in the short term, and possibly ever. This looks very like the end of the Bush admiistration's project to bring freedom, and democracy and "american values" to the region, despite the loft promises he made to irag in the same speech.

Where Mr Bush's new realism falls most seriously short, however, is the remedies he offered. The increase in funding research in to alternative energy resouces is small indeed beside America's enormous consumption, And whether Mr Bush can extend his conversion to alternative energy to his fellow Americans is another question. The craze for huge cars may be waining, but the United States is still far more car dependent than most other countries, and changing the mentality will take much higher prices and a corresponding political will.

Most disappointing about Mr Bush's call for a new approach to energy, however, was his failure to consider the global context and reverse his rejection of the Kyoto treaty. While a reduction in US oil comsumption might help reduce the country's carbon emissions. Mr Bush has still not acknowledge climate change as a pronlem to be tackled co-operatively. Until he does so, his conversion will be sadly incomplete.



The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has angrily rounded on George Bush, saying his arms "are smeared up to the elbow in the blood of other nations".

Mr Bush referred to Iran in his State of the Union address on Tuesday night as "a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people". Mr Ahmadinejad responded by saying that Mr Bush had become President only by "spending billions of dollars and resorting to the court verdict".

At an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency governing board today, Iran expects to learn that it will face the UN Security Council in March, and possible sanctions over its decision to restart uranium enrichment activities.

Iran says it has complied fully with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and claims it is being bullied by Western countries who want to deny it the benefits of atomic energy. The country's head nuclear negotiator said Iran's main enrichment plant was ready for full operation in case of a referral to the Security Council. "We only need notify the IAEA that we are resuming [large-scale] enrichment. When we do that is our call," Ali Larijani said. "If they [report Iran to the Council], we will do it quickly." The Defence Minister, Mostafa Mohammed Najar, warned: "Any aggression against Iran's nuclear facilities will trigger a very immediate and crushing response from the armed forces."

On the streets of Tehran, Mr Bush's comments and the growing international pressure over Iran's nuclear programme provoked reactions from fierce anger at the United States to criticism of Mr Ahmedinejad's government.

"There's a lot of exaggeration about Iran abroad," said Sara, a 25-year-old student at Tehran university. "The elections we had last year were the best witness to our democracy. I voted for Rafsanjani and he lost, but the fact nobody knew who would win was proof we have democracy."

Her friend Azra, a literature student, said: "I'm one of those who shouts out when we have problems here, but it doesn't mean we don't have some democracy. When there is pressure from the outside, the problems increase."

Some expressed fear about Washington's ultimate goals. Anis, a 17-year-old student, said: "We should be afraid of the US after seeing what they did in Iraq. They promised to help the Iraqi people but they just started a war and killed lots of people."

The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has angrily rounded on George Bush, saying his arms "are smeared up to the elbow in the blood of other nations".

Mr Bush referred to Iran in his State of the Union address on Tuesday night as "a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people". Mr Ahmadinejad responded by saying that Mr Bush had become President only by "spending billions of dollars and resorting to the court verdict".

At an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency governing board today, Iran expects to learn that it will face the UN Security Council in March, and possible sanctions over its decision to restart uranium enrichment activities.

Iran says it has complied fully with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and claims it is being bullied by Western countries who want to deny it the benefits of atomic energy. The country's head nuclear negotiator said Iran's main enrichment plant was ready for full operation in case of a referral to the Security Council. "We only need notify the IAEA that we are resuming [large-scale] enrichment. When we do that is our call," Ali Larijani said. "If they [report Iran to the Council], we will do it quickly." The Defence Minister, Mostafa Mohammed Najar, warned: "Any aggression against Iran's nuclear facilities will trigger a very immediate and crushing response from the armed forces."
On the streets of Tehran, Mr Bush's comments and the growing international pressure over Iran's nuclear programme provoked reactions from fierce anger at the United States to criticism of Mr Ahmedinejad's government.

"There's a lot of exaggeration about Iran abroad," said Sara, a 25-year-old student at Tehran university. "The elections we had last year were the best witness to our democracy. I voted for Rafsanjani and he lost, but the fact nobody knew who would win was proof we have democracy."

Her friend Azra, a literature student, said: "I'm one of those who shouts out when we have problems here, but it doesn't mean we don't have some democracy. When there is pressure from the outside, the problems increase."

Some expressed fear about Washington's ultimate goals. Anis, a 17-year-old student, said: "We should be afraid of the US after seeing what they did in Iraq. They promised to help the Iraqi people but they just started a war and killed lots of people

__________________
http://www.x-trail-uk.co.uk

“Attitudes are contagious. Is yours worth catching?”

That's a nicely-written newspaper article, Fiona. I'm not sure that it proves or disproves anything, though; it's an OpEd piece.

Juan

__________________
Whenever I text "Barack," my phone suggests the word "Capable." I guess my my phone IS pretty smart.

not really looking for it to prove or disprove anything it's just a opinion being express that I agree with.

To the chap a few posts ago that said he was not aware of any bristish soldier falling in american soil and I think OMG what about The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), you celebrate it every year.

Although to be honest it has been a big positive for me taking part in this thread. it has helped me understand just how far apart we can be on some issues.

__________________
http://www.x-trail-uk.co.uk

“Attitudes are contagious. Is yours worth catching?”

I wouldn't get too excited, or not, about what Bush said in his speech. The President, on his own, can't do much of anything. He needs the Congress to enact many of these proposals. As a lame duck President in a Congressional election year, with Congress rocked by scandal, public opinion moving towards an end to the Iraqi war, the high price of gas, etc, I'm not sure that the President's speech moved a whole lot of people.

As far as Hamas as a government, it will be interesting to see how it unfolds. I don't think they expected to have to actually govern. I think they expected to make catcalls from the wings. It is my sincere hope that the burden of government turns them around. I, for one, think it is fitting that they won - they've been carping about the US and Israel, not let's see them run a country for themselves. Kind of like your kid that knows everything and runs away from home - they realize it is in fact a cruel world, and maybe the parents can provide some cover, and they come back and ask for help.

As fas as Iran, we are working through the UN to do something about that. What do you propose - we take military action? That would make us ever more popular.

As far as Iraq - I never trusted the intelligence on that one, and I think we should have given it more time. However, I am not a Congressman nor the President, so that opinion doesn't count for much, at least not until the next election. Like it or not, that is Democracy. If it works for Sara in Tehran, I guess it works for me in Florida.

As far as protecting Israel - yes we are protective. My memory is hazy on this, but I am pretty sure that President Clinton sent American troops to die in Bosnia and Herzogovinia. I don't remember Europe stepping up on that one. I remember them griping about why we weren't stepping up on that one. I don't remember having any special compelling national interests in Bosnia prior.

Last - as for being the lone superpower - no doubt that other countries are becoming leaders of influence, but they have miles to go before they become superpowers.

and the superpower leader

Thank God we all have the ability to laugh at ourselves and our country.

Here is a couple of links for you guys have a good read about Mr Bush and enjoy. http://www.fark.com/

and this http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...20Bush%20Drunk

http://www.snopes.com/photos/bushbook.asp

http://www.snopes.com/photos/binoculars.asp

__________________
http://www.x-trail-uk.co.uk

“Attitudes are contagious. Is yours worth catching?”

That chap was me. I was referring to anything since the time that our country was founded.

As far as how far apart we can be, I agree. As I've said already a couple of times, though we disagree, it is helpful for me to understand teh perspective of our friends overseas. Some of it is a little painful to hear, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't hear it.

Good debate/information exchange. I'm politicked out now, and I think I'll take the weekend off from this one.

ps - I always thought that the real root of our conflicts was the Europeans didn't understand the rules to American Football, and we didn't understand soccer! I missed it on that one, I guess.

One last one - if you want to see some funny stuff related to American politics, you have to check out www.jibjab.com. Great stuff.

A'hh well you need to watch this years Soccer World Cup cause America have a decent team and may do very well.

__________________
http://www.x-trail-uk.co.uk

“Attitudes are contagious. Is yours worth catching?”

fiona, for god's sake, the BRITISH FELL ON AMERICAN SOIL BECAUSE WE KILLED THEM.

THEY WEREN'T FIGHTING TO PROTECT US; WE WERE PROTECTING OURSELVES FROM THEM.

that's the most ridiculous statement I've heard yet.

Note:

We kept the Brits out -- in fact, kicked them out.

You all failed to kick the German's out. We came to rescue your asses.

British soldiers fell here because of British tyrrany. Not because they were helping defend us from invaders........

PULEAAAASE.

They deserved to fall. They fell, and anyone else who tries, will fall as well.