More often than not the process of extending an empire is described as "liberation". Napoleon was a "liberator", and so was Stalin in Eastern Europe; so were the British in Africa; the Americans in the Philippines...

And in a sense this was partly accurate - but the other part makes a bit of a difference.

Assuming I don't want to be understood as anti-American, which comes across as more hostile - to say that Bush is un-American or to say that he is not?