PRESIDENT George Bush’s bold inauguration vow to end tyranny around the world does not amount to a “right turn” or signal dramatic changes in US foreign policy, according to senior administration officials.

Startled by reaction to what one well-known Republican described as the president’s “God-drenched” speech, the White House has discouraged speculation that Bush is embarking on a crusade to spread democracy around the globe.

In a series of briefings, officials spoke of an acceleration of existing strategy and portrayed the speech as a “rhetorical institutionalisation” of the anti-terrorist policies the administration has been pursuing in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Bush was widely seen as attempting to emulate the former presidents Woodrow Wilson and John F Kennedy by using his inauguration to articulate sweeping American ideals.

Officials insisted there were no plans for a tough new approach to countries such as Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, all of which have co-operated on the war against terrorism, but none of which is unswervingly committed to US-style democratic ideals.

“The speech was carefully and purposely nuanced,” said Michael Gerson, the chief presidential speechwriter, who went through at least 20 drafts after Bush told his advisers he wanted to talk about “freedom”. “We are dealing with a generational struggle,” added Gerson. “It’s not the work of a year or two.”

The high-flown language used by Bush, notably his commitment to “the great objective of ending tyranny”, thrilled his neoconservative supporters, some of whom had worried that difficulties in Iraq might curb the president’s enthusiasm for promoting democracy abroad.

“It was a rare inaugural speech that will go down as a historic speech, I believe,” said Bill Kristol, one of several neoconservative thinkers who were consulted by the White House before the speech was written.

Other conservative Republicans were dismayed by the president’s missionary zeal. Peggy Noonan, a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan, found the oratory “somewhere between dreamy and disturbing”.

Noting that Bush had declared himself “ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom”, she pondered in The Wall Street Journal whether the White House was suffering from “mission inebriation”. Noonan added: “One wonders if they shouldn’t ease up, calm down, breathe deep, get more securely grounded. The most moving speeches summon us to the cause of what is actually possible. Perfection in the life of man on earth is not.”

Patrick Buchanan, the former right-wing presidential candidate, said Bush had asserted a right “to intervene in the internal affairs of every nation on earth and that is, quite simply, a recipe for endless war. And war is the death of republics.”

There was also scepticism in the Arab world, where commentators contrasted Bush’s emphasis on moral values with US support for undemocratic regimes that furthered its interests.

White House officials said Washington would not jeopardise important relationships by seeking to impose democratic demands on countries with different systems. “The president’s goals are deeply idealistic,” said Gerson. “But his methods are deeply realistic.”

Bush is expected to turn to more practical matters in his state of the union address next month. Many Republicans were surprised he devoted so little attention last week to the urgent domestic challenges that await.

Tyranny may have to wait as the president outlines his policies on mundane matters such as pensions and tax reform. “This world is not heaven,” noted Noonan. “It’s earth.”

Explore World News

• World Agenda

• Iraq News

• US & Americas News

• Europe News

• Middle East News

• Afghanistan News

• Asia News

• Africa News

• Ireland News

Times Recommends

• A doctor, a daughter and a man called Johnny
• Mona Lisa's smile may have belied ill health
• ‘Parasite economy’ lies behind Greek tragedy