RIYADH, Feb 4: The Middle East does not appear to be receptive yet to the "words of wisdom" President Bush offered to the region in his State of the Union address.

His call for spreading democracy in the Middle East has been met with scepticism in the region.

In his address on Wednesday, President Bush called for spreading democracy in Middle Eastern countries and outlined what sounded like confrontation with those he viewed as hostile authoritarian regimes, Syria and Iran; and gentle prodding of allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which, he said, needed to reform their systems and move towards democracy.

In editorial comment on Mr Bush's speech, Saudi daily Arab News said on Friday: "Bush's mission to end tyranny and promote democracy does not look like a campaign against global terror but more a clear attempt to extend US power and influence."

In scathing remarks on "Bush's extraordinarily ill-timed" comments, the editorial emphasised that "public participation in the decision making in the kingdom through Shoura Council began long before Bush became president - and got his call from above to deliver democracy mounted on missiles to the Middle East".

Continuing, the Saudi daily said: "There were some glaring contradictions in Bush's saber-rattling approach to Iran. One is that if the intention to make a nuclear bomb makes Iran 'the world's primary state sponsor of terror -- pursuing nuclear weapons, what does that line of reasoning make the United States, with its thousands of nuclear warheads.

Is it that the United States, because it has a special franchise on civilisation, will use its nuclear power responsibly? "And again, how come Washington has made no fuss whatsoever about the Israeli stockpile of nuclear weapons, the development and existence of which has been an open secret for over 20 years."

The newspaper further argued: "What needs to be questioned is the argument that the possession of nuclear weapons makes some nations terrorists and the other crusaders against terrorism."

Referring to the softened US tone against the North Korean nuclear programme, Arab News said: "Why this sudden change of tone? Could it be that, unlike Iran, North Korea is deemed now to have at least two nuclear devices.

Is that the reason why Washington is using every diplomatic avenue it can find to talk to the maverick regime in Pyongyang and negotiate the country's abandonment of its atomic arsenal? If it is, the lesson is clear for all: If you don't want to be kicked around, get a working bomb.

Whatever Bush may think, it does not seem to be the best way of making this a nuclear free world,". Waleid H. Hashim, a professor of Political Science and columnist, said the speech reflected the American point of view and "imposes American cultural and political way of behaviour on other countries regardless of their right to determine a path for themselves".

According to the professor, Bush's speech portrayed aggressive intentions and negative objectives. "President Bush needs to know that we (Saudis) as a nation have the right to disagree with him and with policies of his administration. "Bush's speech lacked respect and appreciation of the right of other countries and societies to determine their future as per their norms."