"I’m not bothering with any arguments that are based on the assumption that whatever we do is wrong because we’re the ones doing it." I disagree conditionally. Everything 'we' do should be scrutinized because of who 'we' are. As MLK not-so-famously pointed out, the U.S. is "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today," bar none. Violence, in its myriad forms, is our leading export. Whatever we touch has a way of turning to blood, sh-t, and suffering. Until we're ready to acknowledge this, and honestly examine why we consistently work this magic-- whether the executive branch is headed by a 'liberal' or 'conservative' champion-- there's little point in discussing solutions. (For those liberal imperialists and American exceptionalists not inclined to indulge in such generalized, namby-pamby introspection, such an examination could easily and fruitfully be restricted to the current old-lady-who-swallowed-the-fly situation.) In that vein, of course, expecting a chief contributor to the formation of today's problem to help solve that problem-- without so much as an honest assessment of his contribution-- seems rather dim, and disastrously so. But this is who and what we are, innit?