Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (80835)	3/10/2003 2:07:19 AM
From: mistermj	Respond to of 281500

Jimmy Carter Attacked by Killer Rabbit (April 20, 1979) by News of the Odd Today in Odd History, Jimmy Carter was attacked by a rabbit during a fishing trip in Plains, Georgia. The rabbit, which may have been fleeing a predator, swam toward his boat, "hissing menacingly, its teeth flashing and nostrils flared." President Carter was forced to swat at the vicious beast with a canoe paddle, which apparently scared it off. Upon his return to the White House, Carter told his staff about the furry amphibian's assault. Most of them refused to believe him, insisting that rabbits can't swim (although since most mammals can swim, there's no reason to believe that rabbits cannot), and that even if they could, they certainly wouldn't attack humans, and certainly not presidents. Fortunately, a White House photographer had been on the scene, and had recorded the bizarre attack. The photograph showed Carter with his paddle raised, warding off a small creature which might, or might not, have been a rabbit. One staffer was quoted as saying, "You couldn't tell what it was." Undaunted by their skepticism, Carter had the image enlarged, and there it was--a killer bunny rabbit, apparently bent on assassinating the president. The story might have ended there, except that White House Press Secretary Jody Powell mentioned the incident to Associated Press reporter Brooks Jackson in August. The Washington Post ran it as front page news. The original photograph was not available (until the Reagan administration leaked it in 1981), but the paper filled the gap with a cartoon modeled on the poster for the movie "Jaws," starring the rabbit and entitled "Paws." Powell made a belated attempt to impress the public with the seriousness of the attack, calling the creature a "swamp rabbit," but since Carter had to appease his rabbit-loving constituents by insisting that he had not actually smacked his buck-toothed opponent with his paddle, but only splashed water at it to drive it away, it seemed unlikely that he had been in danger. The entire episode became a symbol of Carter's floundering presidency. According to Powell, "[I]t shows the extent to which an insignificant incident can snowball and end up in newspapers and news shows across the country.” Carter biographer Douglas Brinkley says, “It just played up the Carter flake factor.... I mean, he had to deal with Russia and the Ayatollah and here he was supposedly fighting off a rabbit.” A Note from News of the Odd: While some presidential apologists have suggested that Carter might actually have been attacked by a nutria, a large, aggressive aquatic rodent, others have insisted that the President's assailant was a simple, if unusually vicious, bunny rabbit. Many years ago, I was the owner of a Blue Dutch named "Sequin," whom I showed in 4H. One of my friends still bears the scars of an encounter with Sequin--a perfectly matched set of parallel teeth marks, where Sequin's fangs closed on her hand and ripped through the flesh when she pulled her hand away. Bunnies are, indeed, fiercer than anyone but Monty Python has generally given them credit for. Images: Photos of Jimmy Carter from The National Archives and Records Administration. Unfortunately, no digital copy of the famous rabbit attack photo seems to be available; the photo of Carter fishing is a detail from a picture of Jimmy and Rosalynn taken in 1978. newsoftheodd.com

To: JohnM who wrote (80835)	3/10/2003 3:10:42 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I mentioned this move by the Dems the other day, and thought it was a bad one. I think the Repubs will be able to effectively remind voters about this ploy. WSJ.com REVIEW & OUTLOOK Now They Tell Us Why are Democrats who voted for war now siding with France? Monday, March 10, 2003 12:01 a.m. President Bush's words and somber tone show that he believes America could soon be at war. So it is worth more than passing partisan interest that now is the time that the Democratic Party has decided to mount a coordinated assault against Mr. Bush's Iraq policy. There have been a couple of exceptions, notably Texas Representative Martin Frost last week, but the strategy of Democratic leaders is unmistakable. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi made Iraq the subject of her first major foreign-policy address on Friday, a critique that could have been written in Paris. Tom Daschle is in full antiwar mode, and Ted Kennedy is assailing the President on every TV show that will have him. These Democrats have every Constitutional right to do this, but Americans have a right in turn to ask: Why now? Yes to Disarming Iraq 29 Democrats joined 48 Republicans to pass a Senate resolution on October 11 authorizing President Bush to use military force, if necessary, to disarm Iraq: * Max Baucus (Mont.) * Evan Bayh (Ind.) * Joe Biden (Del.) * John Breaux (La.) * Maria Cantwell (Wash.) * Jean Carnahan (Mo.) * Tom Carper (Del.) * Max Cleland (Ga.) * Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) * Tom Daschle (S.D.) * Christopher Dodd (Conn.) * Byron Dorgan (N.D.) * John Edwards (N.C.) * Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) * Tom Harkin (Iowa) * Fritz Hollings (S.C.) * Tim Johnson (S.D.) * John Kerry (Mass.) * Herb Kohl (Wis.) * Mary Landrieu (La.) * Joe Lieberman (Conn.) * Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) * Zell Miller (Ga.) * Ben Nelson (Neb.) * Bill Nelson (Fla.) * Harry Reid (Nev.) * John Rockefeller (W.Va.) * Charles Schumer (N.Y.) * Bob Torricelli (N.J.) These are the same leaders, after all, who made their case to Congress last October and lost. The Senate vote authorizing war against Saddam Hussein was 77-23, with a majority of Democrats (29 of them) in support. We list that roll of approval nearby, including the names Kerry, Daschle, Dodd, Lieberman, Clinton and Edwards. As antiwar Democratic candidate Howard Dean has noted, wasn't that the time for the war's opponents to speak up? Mr. Daschle is in particular beating the antiwar drums, declaring last week that the Bush Administration is "rushing to war without adequate concern for the ramifications of doing so unilaterally or with a very small coalition of nations." Asked by reporter Major Garrett if anything had changed since last fall, Mr. Daschle replied this way: "Oh, absolutely. I think what's changed mostly, Major, is the extraordinary disintegration of support in the international community. I assumed last fall that we would be able to build the same coalition that we had in '91. That has not happened. In fact, if anything, our situation has put us into a more isolated position than I ever anticipated." This is rewriting history. We don't recall hearing last fall that Democratic support was contingent on the right of French first refusal. We've re-read the Joint Resolution on Iraq and nowhere can we find the words "France" or "Germany." Nowhere does it say that the President has to clear his decisions with Gerhard Schröder or Vladimir Putin. The Joint Resolution, which passed less than three weeks before the election, does refer to the U.N. Security Council. But it does so only in the context of "support for United States diplomatic efforts." The pertinent section declares support for "the efforts by the President" to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." That is exactly what this White House did the following month. Yet while Mr. Bush now says that his first duty post-September 11 is to ensure the safety of the American people, Mr. Daschle says his priority is deferring to the French on Iraq and "that military invasion today would be premature." The amnesia of the Democratic leadership includes the Joint Resolution's very tough language about Saddam Hussein. To pick one example: "Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime; ... ." In other words, the policy of "regime change" toward Iraq was first signed into law by Bill Clinton after it had passed by unanimous consent through a Senate that included both Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle. Which brings us back to why now? It's hard to find any answer beyond naked partisanship and opportunism. A vote for the war last October got Senate Democrats past mainstream voters in November. But it also angered many core Democrats, who according to polls now oppose the war by two-to-one margins (in contrast to the nearly 60% of all voters who support Mr. Bush). Democratic leaders want to appease those core supporters, while at the same time positioning themselves to claim told-you-so rights against Mr. Bush if the war or its aftermath goes awry. And if all goes well, no problem. They can always resurrect that October endorsement. If this seems too cynical, keep in mind it is precisely the have-it-both-ways strategy that George Mitchell pursued when he ran the Senate before the Gulf War in 1991. His right-hand man at the time was Tom Daschle. We are not, let us stress, questioning the patriotism of any of these Democrats. But what should be questioned is their judgment. So close to war, and often in stark contrast to their previous votes and positions, the leaders of the party of JFK and FDR now see fit to side with France and Russia against an American President. No wonder voters are reluctant to trust Democrats with the responsibility for ensuring American safety and liberty.