These words communicated the philosophies of ‘just cause’ and ‘just war’ and rekindled the classic realist view that the best way to obtain peace is to prepare for war. The State of the Union speech left no doubt in the minds of the ordinary U. S. citizen that the country was on the brink of a major military adventure in the Middle East. Bush delivered this message in an aggressive and belligerent tone, with the vow that America is prepared to fight "every danger, every enemy." It was a telling opening comment from the head of an administration that spelt out to Bob Woodward the pre-emptive doctrine of neo-imperialist leaders for ever on the lookout for new enemies and dangers. The main corpus of this doctrine was published in the book, Bush at War.

To the uninitiated, Bush’s speech represented the concerns of a compassionate but dedicated President who cares about the state of the Union (strong) and the economy (recovering). One newspaper captured the three-pronged exertions of the President in this way: "Bush: Grow Economy, Fix Medicare and Prepare for War." The clear lesson was that war was also necessary for fixing the economy and ensuring that Americans remain a "free people."

Bush’s zero concern for genuine peace and economic reconstruction was compounded by a clear contradiction of the moment. The President and his family belong to a section of the American elite that is connected to the petroleum industry. Yet, one of the contradictions of this period is the revolutionary potential of hydrogen fuel cell technology. Among the early notable points was Bush’s promise to increase R&D on production of "more energy at home." He predicted that hydrogen-powered fuel cell technology would revolutionise energy usage.

The contradictory position of the President is comparable to the fate of a candle maker in the era of the discovery of electricity. But entrenched investments in the oil industry mean that Bush and his allies are still willing to go to war to control oil fields.

Protesters marching on streets are proclaiming "No Blood for Oil," and so, the speechwriters of the President forked out a long-held view that the world’s largest energy consumer is being held hostage by Arab countries. The reference to hydrogen fuel cell technology was used as an alibi, that is, a crafty rebuttal of peace activist criticism that Bush is interested mainly in Iraq’s 112 billion barrels of oil. Mentioning hydrogen power as a wave of the future is a reminder that American companies like the Connecticut-based UTC Fuel Cells will be the energy leaders of the future. It is also Bush’s way of defending himself by asserting that traditional fossil-fuel extracting petroleum bigwigs like Exxon Mobil are not controlling U. S. foreign policy.