At that point 9/11 was still being used as an excuse to set the electoral agenda.

I think there's a fine distinction between having a population that's actively neo-colonialist, and responding to a manufactured incident used as focus for  a propaganda campaign to incite neo-colonialist adventures.

My point is that significant parts of the population don't seem to be naturally that way inclined - although given a suitable level of media carpet bombing and a shock-horror incident they can be persuaded to turn in that direction.

But that's not the same as - say - the Victorian model in the UK, where there was a strong consensus in all of the classes felt that military intervention in other countries was inherently a good thing. It was an active, not a re-active colonialism. Populations today seem more sophisticated. Even though there's a long way to go, the propaganda only works up to a point. It's a positive sign that given the volume of noise from the Noise Machine in the US, Bush's approval figures are as low as they are. If they were in the 60s we might as well give up and go home.

But they're not. And that's a cause for hope and potentially something to build on.