I think the word you both are looking for is "imperialist".
It is my opinion that there is nothing wrong with imperialism, then or now, when the empire extends rather than reduces the scope of individual rights. Patton should have marched on to Moscow. MacArthur did good in Japan. Bush can do good in the Middle East if he watches his moral barometer.
Wow ... that means a lot coming from you. I agree, of course, but it almost makes me cry to hear you say it.
I would love to see W govern by moral principle rather than short-sighted pragmatism, but I hold little hope for it. While he appears to be (and I believe he is) a moral individual, his policies are driven by sheer political pragmatism. Such policies may foster short-term political gain, but they cannot result in long-term moral good.
And are you honestly suggesting that Bush extend America (the empire) to the ME? While the pragmatic side of me argues for Patton's march, I think that a moral imperative could have been argued at the same time. The current war on terror is almost opposite, with the moral argument being stronger and the pragmatic reasons being lesser. Though our government dismisses the moral elements because of its own moral abdication, the real evil lies not in the weapons of mass destruction, but in the ideologies of those who control them. Unfortunately, these ideologies are shared by many whom we (pragmatically) call allies.