American Foreign Policiy in Context of POTUS post Carter.

I have written before on the relative virtues of Bush 41. In the 5ts I have denoted him as EEEPOTUS, which make me laugh, because of the historic IEEE. Useful in this nomenclature is the observation that, like dental plaque, each after-market machination of intrigue (aka conspiracy) must re-organize every 4 years. Wiki and Academia have no need to change their convention - Adams will always be the best 4th President we have ever known. Since his son had long since set precedent of hating "junior," I differentiated between them from the start; I initially used his honorary doctorate from Yale, and prefer it.

I now approach the idea of documenting more generally the virtues of POTUS's since the Iranian Embassy days, following the Shah's depose.

Carter was a Peanut farmer. His administration was despised historically for having 'no element of surprise.' His peace making efforts deserve their appellation legendary, however efficacious they are. He has employed the 'lack of surprise,' like a Federal Judge, inviting scrutiny of Justice in his own way over time. If the proceeds of farm labor are more visible, they are popularly called perishable; the relative value in an eternal perspective of his efforts in the merchandise of wisdom are no easier to know now than they will be after 50 years of history. Judgment day should be interesting for me in that regard personally.

Despite Carter's unavoidable work ethic, overseas his Pacifism was regarded as license, and the Actor Reagan brought a John Wayne quality to the discussion of the Red Phone and 'the button,' that made the Ayatollah order the release of the subjects of the Yellow Ribbon song the day of Reagan's election, if not 30 seconds before.

[My first experience of the communication available by Rock Stars and music artists as individuals, was a John Denver monologue containing the phrase 'literally ached for people to sing to.' More on Denver later - I think Reagan himself called upon the Yellow Ribbon vehicle.]

Reagan's Rapturist fatalism stood him in good stead as he faced down the Khrushchev type adherents of Leninism and Stalinism. Bush 43s has not been so well employed by history. My thoughts on the cold war ending are (here.) They both seem to have been the type to keep a diary, not a journal (historical tip of the hat to Dr. Dobbs. Don't know who started the "peer reviewed" custom.)

Reagan used the cliche wisdom of "surround yourself with capable people," in the capacity of a VERY able judge of character. His choice of VP was perhaps more luck than inspiration, and qualified as one of his more considered and defensible decisions. I have often laughed about the reputation of Bush 41's Quayle.

Bush 41 as noted above, bringing us to EEPOTUS, Arkansas' Bill Clinton. [I call "Double E's" "Lighting Jocks" as much as anything.] If Arkansas lacks refinement in its culture, they may assist me in re-wording the observation that the Rodham fortune joined those of Heinz and Walker in political and patriotic duty when he married. [I'm told his VP's room-mate was the same Jones as we know from the 5ts as a law grad Texan, if thespian enough.] In terms of neaveau riche, (sp?) Clinton did not do as well as Bush 41 at etiquette, and excelled because of efforts poured into his education overseas. He Politically cherry picked oxford and Cambridge, collecting the Rhodes scholarship along the way (no doubt to pay the bill, as most will do,) doing in England what is more commonly attempted (done?) in the US Ivy Leagues by playing Harvard off against Yale (Bush 43.) Clinton's economic successes may be attributed as much to his comprehension of the Keynesian system, as anything else. I named the 5t 'ASK' protagonist Adams Smith_Keynes to counterpoint (music term) the apparent poles in Economic thought there - Smith is far more intuitive. Clinton's VP was Gore, who loved the ARPANET/DARPANET 'thing,' so much he raised money for it in political ways that defy all other convention. If the internet (or affectionately "teh interweb,") cannot actually surmount a nuclear blast, it can credibly attempt it, by lying in the shadow of the earth's curvature for EM pulses and glass lakes. VPs win elections less than most classes statistically - Senators don't fare much better.

Since we have talked about politically active fortunes, it is appropriate to note others who "are commended to a certain attention by their command of resources." Bill Gates is not only in a class with Dick Cheney by being perpetually half-way through academia (I am but another,) He is notable as having "almost as much money as the Prince of Monaco." He should not be regarded as alone; The Waltons and the Buffets of the future will be influential too (subject to interest and aptitude.) I'll contemplate an entry on the "Trumps" of the world later.

Clinton was succeeded by Bush 43. It is hard to say authoritatively that he will be the worst President in US history, but his debt exceeds Reagan's without commensurate compensation. I suppose that Republicans wanted Bush 41s successes to be repeated so much that Jeb and George were equal choices in the class, and George won out by Texas Governor credentials. Cheney was Bush 41s Secretary of State or Defense (crs?) and a "known good Machiavel." As noted by Peter Jennings (most influential Canadian ever?) before his passing, the time of Yale frat Skull credentials had not passed, and Cheney probably had Skull credentials just like W. Without other status, he was reduced (by this theory) to passing out no-bid contracts to various Skull beneficiaries/benefactors, and Reagan's observation that wartime biases political influence to the executive (war on drugs - Harvard "long war" standing,) was employed slavishly [passive voice?] Mistakes were made. W was too peripheral in his attentions to the constitution, and the "Straight Shooter" reputation he enjoys in Europe may be a charitably abbreviated "Straight Shooting simpleton." I estimate that by not keeping his oath, troth or vow to "defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic," knowledgeably (or at all?) W failed to retain respect in person, possibly damaging the dignity of the office so profound was the ignominy.

To suggest that ANY politician could have withstood INACTION after 9/11/2001 would be irresponsible. Time and place do not allow good analysis; Dr. Ross Anderson was able to state that we should give attention to Piracy law before the attack on Iraq, but I am unable to prove time and venue, or satisfactorily infer audience. For my own part, I am sure that I could be relied on for an authoritative "I do not know," for a long time thereafter. If our intention was to frame a war on terror and not a Protestant Crusade, all Terrorist States were legitimate targets - Libya was legitimate, and has bureaucratically stipulated co-operation since.

Bush 43 went back to "finish the incomplete nature of his father's efforts," is a valid constituency. These overlook the disparity in territorial area of Kuwait and Iraq, disregard the defensive v naked aggression discussion, and fail to acknowledge Shia/Sunni differences - Kurds are a political convenience to them. Iran/Iraq "balance," should probably attempt to learn lesson from the nearly forgotten "Iran/Contra" _affair_ and determine before proceeding further exactly who and what is an ally.

The Oil finance motive is a stereo-typical red-herring to me. I simply can't use it effectively to improve my understanding on the situation. Beyond that, "if something is Political, and you add _more_ Political, it's still _Political_." :-) Oil as an industry has not profited from the conflict - Halliburton profited spectacularly (from Skull connections?) from a conflict they didn't START.

The Patriot Act was probably written by NSA politicos who doubted Orwell's sanity, pre-issue. Sen Sam Nunn can speak authoritatively on efforts to duplicate the feat in an internet context (in my opinion.) I may not find his agenda agreeable (wse have never spoken,) but he is knowledgeable. The unwarranted wire-taps will likely fail muster under Supreme Court spotlight, if ever their constitutionality is questioned. Mathematically, they proliferate haystacks, and are more appropriate for use in localized Narcotics investigations and Mafia trials. [trivia; codes fall to statistical analysis and serve their purpose in an electronic context when used in _conjunction_ with cipher based encryption. Mafiosa (?) use codes to distraction, and a few cribs should make old Mafia trial transcripts VERY informative under that magnifying glass. Pranksters can well envision hilarity for Politicos who must decode a truly controversial message from a source. Ciphers prevent wide distribution, and they are "off the ether" so badly that they need newsprint both to know and tell after that :-)] [SSL is easily turned on. Any server on earth can "entropically enhance" packet content if they choose - password protection is for tables and databases, not data streams.]

I mention these things not entirely at random - they are important aspects of the Bush 43 administrations. I'll owe "dear journal" a Political run-down of the second 43 later - I have notes from Sen Hitchison's voting record.

Write one and owe two more? I better quit digging.