IT'S not what you say, it's how you say it. It's not what you do it's how you do it. As I see it, that is the big difference between US president George W Bush and his predecessor Bill Clinton.

There is so much more to being president than pure politics. If you were to examine the policies of Bush and Clinton, you'd find they are not that far apart. But they have completely different styles. There's a huge gulf between how they conduct themselves and how they communicate.

On the international stage, Clinton had a certain style that people took to. He had diplomatic skills which often made him look like he was prepared to compromise when, in truth, he was actually getting his own way. His personality also meant it was easy for the public to set aside his character flaws.

Bush, by contrast, is straightforward to the extent of being abrasive. On environmental issues, for instance, he has ignored the rest of the world. With the Son of Star Wars missile defence system, he is bulldozing his way through and not being diplomatic at all. Bush may be as good a politician as Clinton, but he does not have the ability to get people to warm to him and that includes international political figures, the media and the public. And we can't all be wrong. He isn't leading the people, he is pulling them along on a leash.

It only takes one or two people to destabilise the world. We've been through the Cold War - the East-West arms race - and are enjoying a period of relative harmony in the world. But the Star Wars programme is a big subject and one which I can see having a possible destabilising effect.

It's a prime example of how Bush can have an impact on Britain, particularly on our Prime Minister Tony Blair. He is having to be more circumspect, more diplomatic, more prepared to compromise.

He has to hover the line. He wants to retain the relationship with America, but also has to be careful not to offend Europe. But more than that, because Star Wars would involve using the early warning base at Fylingdales, on the North York Moors, and Menwith Hill listening base, near Harrogate, he has to consider local feeling too. On top of that, he has to deal with an increasingly vociferous band of back-bench MPs and, of course, the bigger the majority, the more he has to deal with. So Tony Blair is in the middle and he's actually doing pretty well.

When I look at Bush, the main safety net is that his father was quite good, overall, as US president and I can't believe he won't consult with him. Hopefully, as time goes on, Bush Junior will get better. It is, afterall, unfair to expect too much in the first eight months, it's too early to judge him. But that doesn't stop the world comparing him now to Clinton at the end, when he had eight years' experience of the White House. I bet Clinton made mistakes in his first eight months of office too.

When I look at the five past Presidents - Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George Bush senior - I can't help thinking that they were forgotten about pretty quickly. Yet eight months down the line, Clinton is still being dragged into international affairs as he is compared to Bush. What that tells me about Clinton is that he is going to go down as one of the best, like we remember John F Kennedy.

Clinton is no longer president, Bush is, but I wonder who is promoting American interests the best?