For the sake of scope, I'd like to address the process argument as it pertains to how an individual relates to government post-9/11.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand your position (cumulative postings) to be:
1. The consolidation and bureaucratic growth represented by the Homeland Security Department is not a conservative approach. Adding insult to injury, has not been demonstrated to be effective.
2. The Patriot Act is not a conservative approach in its encroachment of civil liberties. However, portions that pertain to non-citizens and sharing intelligence with law enforcement might be acceptable.
3. An opportunity was missed to more aggressively pursue "closed borders, investigations, renewed calls for an armed citizenry and civil defense...".
4. The attack on Afghanistan to pursue AQ, although it resulted in regime change and a commitment, does meet the use of "American power sparingly as the Old Right would prefer." That it did not require "using vast propaganda techniques through layered media ownership to convince 51% of the public that they are under attack is the traditional way states goes to war," is a good measure that it was not an aggressive war, "and Americans and the West have traditionally reject aggressive war."
5. Military pursuits beyond Afghanistan had not been, and could not be today, justified in a conservative's view. Therefore, the process used by the administration to beat the drums of war played on a fusion of neoconservatives and New Deal conservatives, while disarming the general populace by requiring little in sacrifice.
That is pretty good, but I would say in regards to #2, one really needs to understand the conservative fight against Clinton's Terrorism Bill after OKC that was led by none other than John Ashcroft. There is a heavy since of betrayal.
There is an important addition that must be understood, thematically speaking. Conservatives and Old Rightists have long argued that making enemies abroad (numerous interventions around the globe) would eventually lead to terrorism at home.
Also:
If you believe 9/11 was the result of not enough intervention, you would be considered on the Wilsonian side of the equation.
If you believed 9/11 was "caused" by too much intervention, you would be on the Right side.
For conservatives and libertarians, Osama is explained not through abstracts ("he hates us for our freedom") but through a set of historical events:
The United States directly or indirectly supplied material support for 'radical Islam' in Afghanistan in a scheme recently titled Charlie Wilson's War. After the Cold War, the CIA was figuring out what to do with some of these assets; in the case, for example, of Barry Seal, a Contra arms and drugs smuggler, he was assassinated.
Rather than tie up looses ends, the CIA began to involve some members of radical Islam over to Yugoslavia and employed 'radical Islam' to further US policy goals. This came to a head in 1998 when the Clinton Administration allied with the KLA (renamed and still supported by the Bush Administration as the KPF) in Kosovo. According to our Republican Congress the KLA was very 'tight' with one Osama Bin-Laden.
So in the end, the blowback these made a lot of sense and conservatives and libertarians assumed an inward looking solution would carry a lot of weight (on left and right mind you.)
The neoconservatives then conducted a purge and suggested that anyone on the right who would suggest 'blowback' hated their country-- this was done famously by a pro-abortion, expatriate Canadian, David Frum last March. While the Mainstream Right establishment figures thought this just horrible, Joe Six-Pack Republican basically bought into the pathos and settled for the soothing abstractions like: they hate us for our freedom which gave way to "regime change."
The Right was generally enthralled and still hasn't asked, how much is this going to cost?
Communication and direction from the White House has been less than clear so it would hard to argue where this is all going in an Left/Right situation, however, its fair to say, we are still in a moment of hysteria; when the currency markets stop moving, perhaps, we can suggest the hysteria has passed.