>Thanks, William, but I'm bowing out of this discussion....anyone who doesn't fundamentally believe that the proper role of government is the protection of citizens, is going to have a hard time understanding this.

>>the proper role of government is the protection of citizens >>

That's an interesting thought.

By that standard, Switzerland has had and continues to have, one of the best government in history, and the US one of the worst.

Swittzerland has had relatively few losses, while throughout its history, the US has rarely gone 50 years without some major conflict that costs the lives of thousands of its citizens.

The presidents many Americans revere most - Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt presided over the slaughter of millions of American citizens.

I got a chance to see some first hand in one of the "conflicts" and I don't commend it to anyone.

On the other hand, presidents we tend to disparage - Grant, Harding, Hoover, etc, lost few if any.

The notion that we haven't been attacked since 9/11 is true, but there's more to the story.
Since 9/11 more than 4K of our citizens died in Iraq and Afghanistan and more than 40K have been maimed.
The 9/11 deaths were the result of choices made by non-Americans.
The ensuing deaths were the result of conscious choices made right here in the US.
To call it Bush's war is much too simple.
The congress voted overwhelmingly to have our citizens slaughtered and maimed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bush was re-elected handlily after that war was well underway and people were being lost daily.
With some rare exceptions, the entire country was behind that invasion, and most Americans still think that the American invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is good policy.

So while >>the proper role of government is the protection of citizens >> is a good notion, it doesnt seem to have the popular notion in American history, so maybe we ought to be trying to find a to make that notion more prevalent here.