George W. Bush returned on Thursday to the theme he adopted a year ago following the attacks on New York and Washington. The declaration - he that is not with us is against us - was intended for friend and foe alike.
You may need to be reminded of Bertie Ahern's "right-on boss" and promise last year of whatever help Ireland might be able to deliver. Bush praised his gesture and the government's surprising decision to hold a national day of mourning shortly afterwards.
The Ahern promise was probably the nearest an Irish government has got to making such an open offer of help - as if neutrality did not exist or were a thing of the past.
This year, Brian Cowen was more cautious. He reminded commentators in the US of the need to act in accordance with decisions taken by the UN, even as Kofi Annan prepared to temper Bush's more forceful approach to Iraq in line with his determination to resume the role of the world's policeman.
Seldom have our own horizons been so crowded with the challenges of foreign affairs - not only the anniversary of the attacks on the US, but the reminder of the Bush family's unfinished business: George Bush snr had hoped to establish a new world order, possibly during a second term, which was denied him.
America's allies may have been relieved by some changes in his son's bloodthirsty rhetoric in the past year. He has dropped the references to taking his quarry, dead or alive, even as the quarry, Osama Bin Laden in 2001, has changed identity. And the chase, when it comes, will not be a crusade. Cowen's rhetoric, too, has changed. He welcomed the fact that "we are now operating within a United Nations framework" and said: "The role of the UN in this matter would be to seek compliance with existing resolutions. We are not in the business of regime change. What we want is to make sure to maintain international order."
The declaration by Ireland as a member of the Security Council that "we are not in the business of regime change" is significant. It sounds closer to Kofi Annan's view that "there is no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations" than it does to the message Bush delivered at Ellis Island on Wednesday about the risks attached to "appeasing history's latest gang of fanatics".
Conor O'Clery is one of many commentators in the US who are convinced that Bush has run out of patience with Iraq. It may also be taken as a warning to the Secretary-General not to allow the UN to suffer the fate of the League of Nations by allowing discussion to delay action until it was too late.
The US and UK have already collected the evidence and are now beginning to recruit the partners and assemble the allies needed for the assault they are determined to make on Iraq. When it comes to canvassing support among EU member, they will be questioned more closely than they have been elsewhere, especially about the extent to which the rights and liberties of citizens - their own or others - have been ignored or overridden along the way. And, considering how highly regarded she became during her time as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, it would be surprising if Mary Robinson were not among the authorities whose findings they were invited to answer.
Given George W. Bush's line - he who is not with us is against us - it's hardly surprising that his administration found fault with Mary Robinson's work and objected to the view that the work she was engaged in should be carried on by an equally independent and thorough successor. Robinson had drawn attention to conditions endured by Afghan prisoners who had been taken in their homeland and transferred, under appalling conditions, to Guantanamo Bay. The Bush administration disliked her style and independence. Nor would she be allowed to influence the style or direction of the genial Brazilian who succeeded her.
The US government had had enough criticism and, although no one could complain about the former commissioner's unmistakable attitude to the bombers and their supporters, neither she nor anyone else would be allowed to take advantage of renewed interest in last year's events to give it another airing.
And what has the Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrat Coalition had to say about the way in which the work of one of our most respected public representatives has been undermined because of its embarrassment to the US and the light it shed on US pretensions to be the guardian of liberty elsewhere in the world?
Not very much, I'm afraid. Indeed, as the US and UK go about their business in the next month or two, they're more likely to hear about it in Germany, Scandinavia or southern Europe than in Dublin.
Here, the Dáil has once more gone into recess at a time when it might usefully discuss a role in the wider world, to secure which Irish representatives have travelled from pole to pole and promised support for those who, like ourselves, had suffered at the hands of more powerful and wealthier nations. Now that we have the chance to speak up for those who are unlikely to be heard, we'll do what we've got into the habit of doing of late and keep our mouths closed.
And I'm afraid you may not hear too much about one of the most interesting debates in this country if you hang around the conservative parties and their allies in business. The debate is about the competition between the US way of life and European social democracy as reflected in the leanings of the supporters of big business on one side and the EU on the other. This is taking place under the aegis of the Irish Alliance for Europe and the chairmanship of the Jean Monnet Professor at UCD, Brigid Laffan. The alliance includes farmers, trade unions, chambers of commerce and voluntary organisations. Brigid Laffan knows more and speaks more clearly about the EU than anyone else in this State.