Right Wing Nut House

Captain Renault: Major Strasser has been shot. Round up the usual suspects. (Casablanca, 1942)

We have plenty of the “usual suspects” in this, the 24th edition of the Carnival of the Clueless. Hall of Famers Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton are all given a good going over by our intrepid contributors who span the globe to bring you the constant variety of cluebats you’ve come to expect.

It was difficult to cull the herd of nominees for Cluebat of the Week. Here are a few finalists:

* Senator Arlen Specter who is so desperate to see his Philadelphia Eagles win the Super Bowl he wanted to convene a Congressional hearing to see if Congress couldn’t make the team take back problem child Terrel Owens in order to have him play. He then experienced an Emily Litella moment when he was told by the Justice Department to “fagetaboutit.” Never mind.

* How about President Bush’s nominee for Deputy Director of USAID Paul Bonicelli who the President plucked from tiny Patrick Henry College, a fundamentalist Christian institution of higher learning? Nothing inherently wrong with that, of course, except the school isn’t accredited and requires its “science” teachers to sign a statement saying that they believe the earth and everything on it was created in 6, 24-hour days. Mr. Bonicelli allowed that if “there was evidence that contradicted scripture” on the creation of the earth he would be willing to examine it. How very big of him. And the fact that the statement also says if you don’t accept Jesus as God you will end up in “torment” may have caused a few awkward moments around the table with some of our non-Christian friends. Try again, George.

* Don’t forget Nancy Pelosi whose timing couldn’t be better. No sooner does she come out in favor of cutting and running in Iraq than CNN releases a poll saying that 59% of Americans oppose that course of action. Considering that Pelosi has never taken a principled stand in her political life, it appears she slightly miscalculated the mood of the American people. Par for the course for the clueless harridan from San Francisco.

But the winner of Cluebat of the Week absolutely must go to the CIA. Last summer, the spooks leaked a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran that assured us the mad mullahs were 10 years from getting the bomb. The leak was aimed at discrediting the Bush Administration who had been ratcheting up the rhetoric against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Imagine our surprise when America hating IAEA Chairman Muhammad ElBaradei said just yesterday that the radioactive ayatollahs are 6 months from constructing a nuclear weapon. The fact that we are surprised at this doesn’t trouble me. But isn’t it just a little bit disturbing that the CIA was off in its estimate of Iran’s nuclear capability by 9 1/2 years?

So for breathtaking incompetence above and beyond just about anything imaginable, the CIA walks away with the coveted Cluebat of the Week.

Here are 29 more examples of head-scratching cluelessness. Click to your heart’s content.

“Naivete in grownups is often charming; but when coupled with vanity it is indistinguishable from stupidity.”
(Eric Hoffer)

Hey Eric! Just how familiar are you with Democrats on the Hill?
(Me)
************************************************************************************

Orac is rightly upset with an internet squatter who seems obsessed with the Wise One’s website, going so far as to purchase the “dot com” domain name “Orac.” A cautionary tale with an interesting comment thread as well.

The usually placid Pachyderms at Elephants in Academia are steaming mad at John Kerry for…well, being John Kerry first and foremost but specifically for some recent remarks made by the Senator from Hanoi about timetables for withdrawal from Iraq.

Another takedown of Kerry at Palmetto Pundit who posits “Using John Kerry’s new math, we have to conclude that Withdrawal=Success. Call me old fashioned, but I still use the old formula which is Victory=Success.” Yep.

Jay at Stop the ACLU has the skinny on the “rights” organization’s attack on the CIA. As Jay points out, don’t these cluebats realize there’s a war on? Actually they do - they’re just having problems with “enemy identification.”

Good to have Matt Johnston contributing to the Carnival again. His post on the cluelessness of football fan Senator Specter has a nice analogy using the Senator’s own staff as an example.

Mark Coffey chews up Senator Kennedy and spits him out for his clueless comments on Judge Alito’s upcoming confirmation hearings. Pot meet kettle. Mark surprises himself as he notes it is the first time that Kennedy has made his “Jackass of the Week.” Sometimes, we tend to overlook the obvious…

Raven has the tale of some protesters who tried to confront Ward Churchill about his “little Eichman” comment. A flavor of what went on at the protest: “He also claimed the guest speaker left the building but not before “putting a hex on us in an Indian dialect.” Read the whole thing.

The Headmistress of those gentle home schoolers in The Common Room has an excellent article on the UN’s attempt to take over the internet. “What’s wrong at the UN? Well, it depends on your point of view. From the point of view of self-perpetuating institutions, nothing”. I would say that’s spot on.

Another Carnival regular we can welcome back after a while is Tom Bowler of the excellent Libertarian Leanings. Tom has a few thoughts on the Democrats and Iraq: “They are a party demanding a timetable but needing a clue.” Uh-huh.

Your dose of Carnival satire is brought to you this week by Mr. Right and Buckley F. Williams. Suggest you put down all liquid refreshment before reading either of these excellent screeds.

The Right Place has the Democrats newest fundraising gimmick; a CD of Christm…I mean “seasonal” songs sung by their political stars including Hillary’s marvelous rendition of “”I Caught Bill Kissing Mrs. Claus.” And The Nose on your Face contributes “The Top 9 Other Prison Complaints of Saddam Hussein” including #7: I’m not allowed to put up pictures from my Playboy: Girl’s of Mesopotamia issue.

JB on the Rocks takes two towns in Arizona to task for allowing “public nudity.” As Jeff points out, public breastfeeding is a question of fairness to others, not whether it is right. I might add something about bad manners but hey! What do I know? I’m a 51 year old mossback with old fashioned ideas about what should and shouldn’t be done in public.

Jack Cluth of The People’s Republic of Seabrook asks “Isn’t it about time that we WAKE UP AND SMELL THE CAT LITTER??” regarding President Bush and his “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.” As usual, Jack holds up the liberal argument against Bush as well as it can be done.

Rachel at Tinkerty Tonk defends C.S. Lewis and The Chronicles of Narnia against anti-Christian moonbats. Lewis, one of the most thoughtful men of the 20th century, used the imagery in Narnia to make a statement about universal truths and humanity, as Rachel points out. Only a clueless atheist would see anything else.

The lovely and super-smart Mensa Barbie has an interesting post on the skyscraper in Taipei that scientists believe could be causing (proximately) earthquakes. Clueless engineers? Read the post and follow the fascinating link to the American Geophysical Union’s website.

Critical thinker Skeptico turns a baleful glance toward a San Francisco cluebat Supervisor who is demanding all businesses of 20 or more employees to have health insurance. A nice idea but pretty arbitrary and capricious - which is about what you’d expect from the San Francisco government.

Will Franklin sends along this story in the student-run Eagle of Texas A&M University about a cluebat who threw horse feces on the rival University of Texas band. Flinging feces, eh? Read what the Dean says about it.

It’s “Old Home” week as Mean ole Meany rejoins the Carnival with the first year-end round up I’ve seen to date. Of course, it’s done the way that only Two Dogs can do it - real mean and brutally funny.

Fred Fry reminds us just what kind of tree we’re putting up this season. The fact that intelligent, rational human beings are even discussing this shows the absolute, total cluelessness of the left in opposing the idea of a “Christmas” tree.

Soccer Dad has the jawdropper of the day with a post on what an American reporter asked Osama Bin Laden in an interview that was published in the book A Brief History of a Long War. Please Santa…add that one to the stocking.

A.J. at The Strato-Sphere has the skinny on a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll showing surprising support for staying until the job is done in Iraq. Murtha and Pelosi should be wiping the mud off their faces about now.

Sethual Chocolate at Multiple Mentality lays into Sony for their cluelessness regarding their attempts to curb piracy of their CD’s that backfired spectacularly.

Doug at Below the Beltway has a hilarious post on the Canadian moonbat who believed that the US was going to build a base on the moon to shoot down alien visitors. A Carnival finalist last week.

The Maryhunter has a real headshaker involving Producer-Director David Lynch and his curious ideas about how to win the War on Terror.

Adam at the excellent Sophistpundit has a funny conversation between Harry Reid and a glass house over a speech by Vice President Cheney.

Van Helsing is stalking moonbat extraordinaire Ramsey Clark and gives the traitor his just desserts in an eye opening post about Clarke’s life of anti-American activism.

Kevin at The Liberal Wrong-Wing has a great fisking of Michael Moore. Some new jawdroppers from Mr. Moore are featured.

Finally, here’s my take on the cluelessness of the New York Times and redistricting.

How many times can one agency be so wrong about so many things while at the same time selectively leaking classified data in order to put themselves in the best possible light and engage in partisan back stabbing?

The list of events and trends that the CIA has failed to either alert the government to or analyzed incorrectly in their capacity as the nation’s foreign watch dogs is astonishing. Over the past quarter century, they have proven themselves to be not just inept but also foolish, arrogant, corrupt, and incompetent as the forces of history and the machinations of evil men escaped their myopic gaze resulting in the injury and death to thousands of United States citizens. Their mistakes have also cost the US in the arena of diplomacy as faulty - sometimes ludicrous - analysis regarding both our friends and enemies has placed our diplomats and negotiators on unsound footing.

We are not talking about some Mickey Mouse third world assassination squad. We are talking about an agency with a classified budget that some have estimated to be as high as $70 billion dollars. It is an agency that is supposed to be staffed by our best and brightest minds. They have at their disposal some of the most mind-blowing gadgetry ever dreamed up - euphemistically referred to as “National Technical Means - that can see and even hear what our enemies may be up to.

What they cannot do is peer into the minds and hearts of people who would do us harm. For that, our leaders depend on the judgment of an army of analysts. With access to intelligence from thousands of sources both overt and covert, these career employees are supposed to leave their own ideological biases at home in order to give the most intelligent and thoughtful analysis based on the facts available that they can.

Instead, the safety and security of our country has been held hostage by a group of ideologues - of both the left and right - who seek to advance their partisan and ideological agendas while the crazies of the world plot to destroy us.

A short list of “missing the big picture”:

* An analysis by the newly minted agency in 1949 assured President Truman that the Soviets were a decade away from building an atomic weapon. Before the end of that summer, the Soviets had tested their first nuclear device.

* The CIA failed to anticipate the invasion of South Korea by North Korea despite a massive buildup of NoKo forces. They also failed to anticipate the entry of China into the war 6 months later.

* The CIA was wildly off target in their estimate of China’s nuclear potential, believing that the Reds were 5 years away from having the bomb the same year - 1964 - that China exploded its first nuclear device.

* An analysis in 1989 found the collapsing Soviet Union was planning a “manned mission to Mars” sometime after 2000.

* The agency missed the invasion of Kuwait in 1991, calling Saddam’s massive build-up on the border “saber rattling.”

* The CIA consistently failed in the 1990’s to penetrate the #1 enemy of the United States - al Qaeda. The results of which were catastrophic.

* Despite warnings, the CIA failed to anticipate the 9/11 attack.

And now we can add to this list the fact that the CIA was wildly off target in its estimate of when the mad mullahs in Iran would have their hands on a nuclear weapon.

Last summer in a leak designed to undermine the Administration’s case for sanctions against Iran, cherry-picked facts from a National Intelligence Estimate showed that the consensus in the government was that Iran was more than a decade away from being able to build a nuclear weapon:

A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.

The carefully hedged assessments, which represent consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies, contrast with forceful public statements by the White House. Administration officials have asserted, but have not offered proof, that Tehran is moving determinedly toward a nuclear arsenal. The new estimate could provide more time for diplomacy with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. President Bush has said that he wants the crisis resolved diplomatically but that “all options are on the table.”

The new National Intelligence Estimate includes what the intelligence community views as credible indicators that Iran’s military is conducting clandestine work. But the sources said there is no information linking those projects directly to a nuclear weapons program. What is clear is that Iran, mostly through its energy program, is acquiring and mastering technologies that could be diverted to bomb making.

Even at the time I thought that was a ridiculous statement. So did the Israelis:

Israeli intelligence officials estimate that Iran could be capable of producing enriched uranium within six months and have nuclear weapons within two years. Earlier this month, head of Israeli military intelligence Maj. Gen. Aharon Ze’evi said that while Iran was not currently capable of enriching uranium to build a nuclear bomb, “it is only half a year away from achieving such independent capability – if it is not stopped by the West.”

Guess who was closer to being right - Mossad or CIA? It turns out that according to the UN nuclear watchdog group, the International Atomic Energy Administration (IAEA) and the IAEA chairman Muhammad ElBaradei, Iran is 6 months away from having their hands on the bomb:

IAEA chairman Muhammad ElBaradei on Monday confirmed Israel’s assessment that Iran is only a few months away from creating an atomic bomb.

If Tehran indeed resumed its uranium enrichment in other plants, as threatened, it will take it only “a few months” to produce a nuclear bomb, El-Baradei told The Independent.

As it turns out, the CIA’s “analysis” of Iranian nuclear capability was ludicrously wrong.

How can we continue to put up with this incompetence? Anyone who believes that a nuclear Iran is not a threat to the very existence of the United States is massively fooling themselves. While the mullahs wouldn’t give a nuclear weapon to al Qaeda (we think - that analysis also comes from the CIA) there are any number of fanatics who would be glad to set off a couple of nukes on US soil. And if Iran believed that whoever was President wouldn’t retaliate massively, they would be more than willing to take the chance in order to have the US descend into an economic and social chaos we would be a decade or more recovering from.

In order to imagine a nuclear device going off and destroying a major American city, think New Orleans then multiply by ten. The economic shock alone would throw millions out of work. And the social cost of millions of refugees fleeing both the blast and fallout would throw American society into chaos. The demand for safety and security would put pressure on lawmakers to enact restrictions on our freedoms that would make the Patriot Act look like a walk in the park by comparison.

And suppose we did retaliate against Iran? Have you noticed who is cozying up to the radicals in Tehran recently?

The statement appeared timed to head off the heated reaction expected from the United States after Russian media reported Friday that officials had signed contracts in November that would send up to 30 Tor-M1 missile systems to Iran over the next two years.

The Interfax news agency said the Tor-M1 system could identify up to 48 targets and fire at two targets simultaneously at a height of up to 20,000 feet.

Putin has also offered to enrich Iran’s uranium as part of a deal involving the EU. The problem with this “deal” is that once the Iranians get their hands on even partially enriched uranium, it is not a big deal to further enrich the nuclear material to make weapons grade uranium.

Suppose we were to retaliate against an Iranian sponsored terrorist nuclear attack by leveling Tehran and a few other Iranian cities? The outcry against us would make criticism of our Iraq policies seem tame. And that fallout cloud could very well drift into Russian territory - something that Mr. Putin would frown on and may feel compelled to respond to.

There is no getting around it. Iran must be stopped and soon. We know it. The Israelis know it. The Europeans know it. The UN knows it.

The question that must be asked is anyone going to do anything about it? Iran is betting that the world will fiddle while they build. They have indicated that they will not stop enriching uranium regardless of what the Europeans or Americans think.

And given the recent track record of the CIA’s analysis on Iran, the frightening prospect of agency blunders leading us toward a nuclear precipice is a real possibility.

If they weren’t such a bunch of defeatist, partisan, left-wing, hypocrites, you could almost feel sorry for the New York Times. Instead, after reading editorials like the one today about how Republicans are (in no particular order) undermining the Constitution, stripping people of their rights, rigging the election process, and politicizing the judicial system, it would perhaps be better to point a finger in their direction and laugh uproariously at the attempt to turn the recent history of Congressional redistricting into a Fractured Fairy Tale of lies, half truths, and convenient memory lapses:

The rules of American democracy say every president may install his own team of like-minded people in the government - even at a place like the Justice Department, which is at its root a law-enforcement agency and not a campaign branch office. But the Bush administration seems to be losing sight of the fact that the rules also say the majority party of the moment may not use its powers to strip citizens of their rights, politicize the judicial system or rig the election process to keep itself in office.

You may remember the Fractured Fairy Tale cartoons from the old Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. Writer A.J. Jacobs would take a fairy tale and turn the story on its ear by positing outrageous juxtapositions of the familiar facts with thoroughly modern elements ending the segment with a bad pun as a comic punchline. The Times may fail miserably in the comedy department but that doesn’t seem to deter them from corrupting history to suit their partisan agenda by glossing over the past and dishonestly exaggerating the present to skewer Republicans over redistricting practices that have been carried out since Alexander Hamilton’s time.

I have absolutely no doubt that Republicans gamed the system in order to increase their majority in the House not only in Texas but other states as well. And this is a shock to the New York Times? Of course, they couch their objections in terms of “civil rights” but what is really at work here? Are Republicans drawing Congressional districts to disenfranchise minorities or to maximize the votes of their constituencies? In other words, by drawing district lines that “dilutes” the most reliable bloc of Democratic votes - Blacks and Hispanics - are Republicans being racists or simply emulating the practices of past Democratic Party masters of the tactics of gerrymandering?

One of those masters was Phil Burton of California. Burton was a pugnacious, unabashed liberal whose personal style was so offensive that many in his own party gave him a wide berth. But he was a genius at redistricting California and making it a Democratic state. His 1980 redistricting plan was a jaw dropping exercise in partisan political hackery. He himself referred to the plan as “my contribution to modern art” so wildly skewed were the lines that delineated Congressional districts. I wonder if the Times would say the same thing about Burton that they wrote about Tom DeLay?:

But The Washington Post’s Dan Eggen reported last week that the Justice Department has been suppressing for nearly two years a 73-page memo in which six lawyers and two analysts in the voting rights section, including the group’s chief lawyer, unanimously concluded that the Texas redistricting plan of 2003 illegally diluted the votes of blacks and Hispanics in order to ensure a Republican majority in the state’s Congressional delegation. That plan was shoved through the Texas State Legislature by Representative Tom DeLay, who abused his federal position in doing so and is now facing criminal charges over how money was raised to support the redistricting.

Did Burton “abuse” his federal position when he bragged about his plan? The result of Burton’s machinations became clear in 1982. When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, there were 22 Democratic and 21 Republican Congressmen. In 1982, following Burton’s manipulation of the system, there were 28 Democrats and 17 Republicans in Congress. In 1984, Republicans won a majority of votes in Congressional districts but failed to gain a single seat thanks to Burton’s gerrymandering.

The map drawn up by Burton looked like he had given a monkey a crayon and allowed him to scribble on a map of the state. Burton’s own district featured so many twists and turns that the lines actually ended up splitting apartment buildings in two. There were lines drawn down the middle of streets so that one side was in Burton’s district and the other side given over to the Republicans. All of this legerdemain was necessitated by the changing nature of Burton’s district which had become gentrified and thus full of Republican voters. But it was made possible - like DeLay’s efforts in Texas - by the magic of computers and the science of demography.

And the 2001 redistricting process in California was in some ways, even more outrageous:

The same could be said of the 2001 gerrymander, especially considering the 23rd congressional district drawn to guarantee Democratic Congresswoman Lois Capps a safe seat. It traces the California coastline from Monterey County down to Ventura County. Although it is 200 miles long, its width ranges from five miles to 100 yards, carefully avoiding Republican leaning-neighborhoods. When discussing the 2001 redistricting map that created this district the Governor said it looked like it was drawn by “a drunk with an Etch-a-Sketch.”

Much as we are loathe to admit, we Americans tend to vote in blocs. People of similar incomes, color, religious faith, sexual preference, and even TV preferences (to name a few) all tend to vote in a similar way. This is the dirty little secret in American politics and is grist for the demographer’s mill when they seek to slice and dice the data and turn it into political power. If one were to feed recent election results by precinct along with census figures from that same zip code into a computer and ask it to elect a Republican Congressman, the obedient machine would spit out a map that would guarantee a Republican majority district.

While court decisions have required plans to take into account the racial make-up of districts, there is nothing on the books that says lines must be drawn to insure a certain number of Democratic seats. This is the real beef of the Times and the opponents of the Texas redistricting plan. It is not so much a question of “diluting” minority votes as it is a question of blunting the impact of Democratic votes. The fact that the voters are members of a minority is a straw man set up to hide the real objection - Republicans drew the lines to garner more seats in the House of Representatives.

In the mind of the editors at the New York Times, this raw exercise in political power is evil and indicative of a Republican plot to destroy the Republic. But in telling this fractured fairy tale, the Times misses the punchline. By totally ignoring past efforts of Democrats when they were the majority party and seeking to cement that advantage using the same tactics as Republicans, it somehow didn’t seem quite as urgent to defend the rights of the minority.

GREEN BAY QUARTERBACK BRETT FAVRE AFTER THROWING AN INTERCEPTION THAT WAS RETURNED FOR A TOUCHDOWN BY THE BEARS NATHAN VASHAR

It was the moment of the game Bears fans had dreaded. So many times in the past, the Bears had enjoyed a lead on the Green Bay Packers in the waning moments of the fourth quarter only to have Brett Favre step up and eviscerate the Bear’s defense with a combination of precision passing and an iron willed determination to win.

Following the fourth Robbie Gould field goal of the game with 8 1/2 minutes to go to make the score 12-7, Green Bay brought the ensuing kick-off back to their own 38 yard line. The very first play of the drive, Favre hit Robert Ferguson for a 16 yard gain and just like that, the Packers were in Bears territory.

A collective groan rose from the bundled, freezing faithful at Soldiers Field. Must history repeat itself again? Why the hell couldn’t Santayana just keep his big mouth shut and realize that history can repeat itself all on its own, that some things are beyond the scope of human understanding. Brett Favre plays the Bears as if he is Buffy and the Chicago players are vampires. And it appeared that his supply of wooden stakes that for 11 years he has pounded into the beating hearts of Chicago players and fans would never run out.

Then, a miracle. Divine intervention took the form of a 6′3″, 300 pound cat-quick defensive lineman named Tommie Harris. How quick is Harris? On the second play of the Green Bay drive, Favre took the ball from center and started to sprint left, holding the ball in his outstretched hand ready to hand the ball off to Green Bay’s hard running rookie running back Samkon Gado when Harris blew up the play. He sidestepped the attempted block of left guard Scott Wells and with two strides and a lunge he became a Visigoth pillaging amongst the innocents. He wrapped Favre up before the quarterback could finish the hand-off causing a fumble that was recovered by Lance Briggs. The ensuing Bears drive resulted in a three and out but Brad Maynard’s punt landed inside the Green Bay 5-yard line.

So Brett Favre once again shouldered the offense - but this time, he had 95 yards to cover before he could dance on the Bear’s grave. The change in field position was significant. With a 95 yard field to traverse, the Bears defense could afford a mistake or two.

In that respect, they didn’t disappoint.

After Gado gained a yard on a running play, Favre dropped back deep into the end zone and let loose one of his patented rockets. The ball traveled nearly 50 yards on a line against the wind. The Bear’s Mike Green (replacing Chris Harris who was injured earlier in the game) had fallen down and after getting up, ran straight into the intended receiver Donald Driver. If Green had been looking for the ball he might have intercepted it. Instead, it was a pass interference play and Green Bay was in business at their own 42 yard line.

After an excellent pass defense by Lance Briggs on first down caused Favre’s throw to fall harmlessly incomplete, the Bears decided to reach back into the mists of history and employ the old “46″ defense. Also known as the “Bear” defense, it was invented by Buddy Ryan, Bears defensive coach during their Super Bowl run in 1985. The scheme calls for four down linemen and 6 backers crowding the line of scrimmage. Impossible to run on, the scheme is also useful in blitz packages because the quarterback doesn’t have a clue whether any or all of the backers will be trying to pay him a visit.

In this case, it was Peanut Tillman who lined up on the outside shoulder of Packers left tackle Chad Clifton. Lined up next to Tillman was linebacker Briggs who had blitzed on several occasions in the second half. When the ball was snapped, Clifton went inside to block Briggs which gave the Peanut a clear path to the quarterback.

Favre never saw him coming. The tremendous blindside hit caused another fumble which was recovered by Adewale Ogunleye at the Packer 30. A woozy Favre had to be assisted off the field. The ensuing drive by the Bears - 3 plays for 5 yards - typified the offensive output for the Bears this day. Quarterback Kyle Orton was lousy and running back Thomas Jones (19 carries for 93 yards) couldn’t do it all by himself. The field goal attempt by Gould on fourth down was just short, once again giving Brett Favre and the Packers a shot to drive down the field and win the game, this time with a little more than 4 minutes to go in the game.

Four minutes to a decent NFL quarterback is an eternity of time. For Brett Favre, 4 minutes is a nearly a vacation. With 4 minutes to work with, Favre could have lollygagged on Montrose Beach for a while before swaggering up to the line of scrimmage to engineer the game winning drive.

But Favre had absorbed some tremendous shots at the hands of the Bears defense. Tillman’s baduce of a blow may have disoriented him slightly judging by what transpired next. After two easy completions, Favre tried a deep out to Driver that Nathan Vashar stepped in front of and ran back for the clinching touchdown.

With three minutes to go, there was still time to bring the Pack back. But the weather conditions as well as Favre’s lack of offensive weapons finally sealed Green Bay’s fate. Favre did indeed engineer a 16 play drive that made its way slowly down the field. The Packers needed two conversions on fourth down to keep the drive alive and in the end, Favre just took too long. The game’s final play, snapped from the Bear’s 15 yard line, was a pass that Tony Fisher caught and tried to run into the end zone but fell three yards short.

So for this game, the Bears once again brought luck and defense to the table and not much else. One shudders to think what would happen if the Bears were to face a team with both a great defense and a great running game. They will get their chance next week as they travel to Pittsburgh to play John Cole’s desperate Steelers. Expect a close, low scoring game for 2 1/2 quarters until the Steelers take over the game and win going away.

Don’t ask me how it happened but apparently The House is a finalist in this year’s Weblog Awards for “Best Conservative Blog.” This is quite an honor and I would like to thank all of you who voted for me.

It occurred to me while picking up my jaw from off the floor that there are dozens of sites much more worthy of recognition - many of whom may not have even been nominated. Moonbattery, TMH Bacon Bits, Cao’s Blog, Kender’s Musings, and Stop the ACLU are a few that come to mind. These are serious thinkers and excellent writers who are dedicated to the conservative cause. They have also been blog buds and consistent in their support and encouragement of me during the entire time this site has been on line.

For that, I thank them. And for all of my readers old and new, I hope you continue to visit and offer me your wit and wisdom.

RICK MORAN SAYS “FOLLOW THE CARNIVAL TO MONDAY!”

The Carnival of the Clueless is moving!

Yes, the Carnival is pulling up stakes and moving to Mondays in hopes of generating more traffic for the dozens of bloggers who toil away, searching the internet for cluebats to hold up to public ridicule, all for your enjoyment.

Last week’s Carnival was the best yet with 29 entries from both the right and left side of the political spectrum hammering those individuals and groups among us who truly don’t have a clue.

The new deadline for entries will be Sunday at 11:00 PM.

Here’s what we’re looking for:

Each week, I’ll be calling for posts that highlight the total stupidity of a public figure or organization – either left or right – that demonstrates that special kind of cluelessness that only someone’s mother could defend…and maybe not even their mothers!

Everyone knows what I’m talking about. Whether it’s the latest from Bill Maher or the Reverend Dobson, it doesn’t matter. I will post ALL ENTRIES REGARDLESS OF WHETHER I AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED OR NOT..

You can enter by emailing me, leaving a link in the comments section, or by using the handy, easy to use form at Conservative Cat.

BRETT FAVRE CELEBRATES ANOTHER TOUCHDOWN PASS

I hate the Packers.

No, you don’t understand. I mean I really, really really hate the Green Bay Packers. It is a visceral hate born of watching more than a quarter of the 169 contests between these two charter members of the National Football League. It is in my blood. It is in my genes.

It is a hate born of watching Ray Ray Nitschke, the fiercest of Vince Lombardi’s warriors back in the 1960’s, plant Bears quarterback Bobby Wade in a game at Wrigley Field in 1964. Nitschke didn’t tackle him. He assaulted him. As the hapless quarterback lay writhing in pain on the ground, Nitschke gave him an extra shove as he rose to his feet and then stepped over Wade’s fallen carcass with no more concern than he would have stepped over the body of a recently downed dead deer.

Then there was the 1986 game at Soldier Field. The Super Bowl Champion Bears were well on their way to another appearance in the Big Game when Packers defensive lineman Charles Martin picked quarterback Jim McMahon up and body slammed him to the field well after the whistle ending the play had been blown. McMahon was lost for the season and the Bears haven’t been back to the Big Game since.

Of course, the Bears are not entirely without fault in this rivalry. In fact, most long time observers believe that the hatred between the Bears and Green Bay started way back in the 1920’s when Bears owner and coach George “Papa” Bear Halas got the Packers expelled from the league in order to prevent them signing a particular player, and then graciously got them re-admitted after the Bears had closed the deal with that player.

And let’s not forget coach Mike Ditka - a man with a strong personal dislike of Packers coach Forrest Gregg - who put the enormous 300 lb William “The Refrigerator” Perry into the backfield on 3rd and goal from the two yard line on a Monday night game with the whole country watching. Perry scored, taking the ball and knocking the Packer players over like so many bowling pins on his way into the end zone.

The look on Ditka’s face as he stared down Gregg on the other side of the field said it all.

So tomorrow, it will be Bears vs. Packers. In December. With an expected 6 inches of snow here in Chicago overnight and temperatures in the teens, the game will be a throwback. It will be a game dominated by the interior lines of both teams, a matchup that overwhelmingly favors the Bears. In fact, there should be absolutely no reason why the Bears should not win this game going away.

Except…

Except for Brett Favre. I may be drummed out of the Royal Order of the Bear for saying this but I love watching Brett Favre play the game. He is not only the greatest quarterback I have ever seen he is the greatest football player I have ever seen. He has beaten the Bears 21 of 26 times in his Hall of Fame career and many, many of those games were victories snatched from the jaws of defeat in the final minutes. He also has a streak of 11 straight wins against the Bears on the road.

Brett Favre is a gunslinger. He will pass anywhere, anytime, to anyone. He will pass into single coverage or double coverage. He will pass overhand, underhand, sideways and every which ways. He will pass with defensive linemen draped all over him like Christmas tree ornaments. He will pass on the run. He will pass while being tackled.

He will pass in sunshine, rain, snow, hail, or sleet. He will pass in stifling heat or bitter cold. He will pass even when he shouldn’t and still complete it. He will pass when he should and make history.

He is a man born to play football. And if this his last game at Soldier Field, I will regret it enormously. The Bears-Packers rivalry just won’t be the same without him. And neither will the NFL.

It’s Bears vs. Packers. It is December. There will be snow and cold and bitter wind. The hitting will be memorable. Blood will be spilled. No quarter will be given, none asked. Throw out the records. It’s Bears vs. Packers. In December.

Be prepared for pain.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker.

If you look very closely, you can see patches of ice forming along the banks of the River Styx. Charon, the ferryman, is seriously contemplating trading in his flat bottomed boat for an ice breaker while he worries that soon, some of the recently departed will be able to simply walk across the river without paying him and enter the afterlife, leaving the ferryman holding the bag so to speak.

In fact, there’s a decided chill in the air in hell these days. I say this because Hillary Clinton’s recent comments about Iraq actually make some sense and are worthy of serious consideration.

Now before many of my right-leaning friends stage an intervention and try to get me to voluntarily commit myself for 6 months of aromatherapy, let me make matters worse by saying I don’t believe that what Hillary is trying to accomplish is necessarily a poll-driven exercise in moderation. In fact, while her continued support for the war has more qualifiers than a pill bottle’s warning label, I would like to point out that she is opposed to a rigid timetable for withdrawal and in support of pretty much the same formula for victory that President Bush has recently outlined.

If this is a calculated move on her part to make herself more acceptable to the broad middle in American politics, I should remind you that she is agreeing with a President with a 42% approval rating, a man who demonstrably is in trouble with those same middle of the road Americans that are absolutely necessary to achieve victory in any race for the White House.

And Clinton has demonstrated a refreshing independence from what should be her natural base - the hard left Democrats who now stalk her fundraisers with protest signs against the Iraq war. The anger generated among this constituency for her continued support of the war has some Democratic strategists wondering whether Senator Clinton is hurting her chances to win the nomination. These very same activists hurling invective at the former First Lady are usually the determining factor in who the Democrats nominate for President every four years. And many of them have made it crystal clear that any candidate who voted for the war’s authorization need not come ’round at primary time, hat in hand, trying to win their affections.

Those activists overstate their influence with Hillary. Given her rock star status and proven ability to raise huge sums of money, if Senator Clinton chooses to run in 2008 I daresay she will be able to call upon the best and brightest in the Democratic party to staff her campaign as well as energize enough of the base to overcome the opposition of the cut-and-run crowd.

So if Hillary’s recent statements of support for continuing the war through as she has said, to an “honorable” victory aren’t purely a matter of repositioning herself toward the middle, it could very well be that the wife of the greatest prevaricator to ever occupy the White House could, in fact, mean what she says on Iraq.

And why not? Clinton’s statements before a womans group this past Monday sounded like any reasonable American defending our commitment to Iraq:

The New York Democrat said she respects Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., the Vietnam veteran and hawkish ex-Marine who last week called for an immediate troop pullout. But she added: “I think that would cause more problems for us in America.”

“It will matter to us if Iraq totally collapses into civil war, if it becomes a failed state the way Afghanistan was, where terrorists are free to basically set up camp and launch attacks against us,” she said.

If that sounds familiar, it’s because that is exactly what the President has been saying for more than two years.

And her critique of the intelligence fiasco leading up to the war, while reliably anti-Bush, stops well short of the “Bush lied” theme adopted by many of the more radical elements in her party:

“I take responsibility for my vote, and I, along with a majority of Americans, expect the president and his administration to take responsibility for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of the war…”

And when she visited Iraq last summer, she certainly didn’t sound like a defeatist:

“The concerted effort to disrupt the elections was an abject failure. Not one polling place was shut down or overrun,” Clinton told reporters inside the U.S.-protected Green Zone, a sprawling complex of sandbagged buildings surrounded by blast walls and tanks. The zone is home to the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy…

…The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure,” Clinton said.

I think it safe to say that Hillary Clinton, while remaining a fiercely partisan Democrat, has been one of President Bush’s more reliable Democratic supporters of his war policies. Considering the statements and actions of some other Democrats who voted for the war like John Kerry and John Edwards, Hillary’s position on Iraq has been a model of bi-partisan cooperation. She said as much in her speech on Monday:

She blamed the problems facing the United States in Iraq on “poor decision-making by the administration,” but added: “My view is we have to work together to fix these problems.”

The fact that Mrs. Clinton’s steady support for the war flies in the face of the conventional wisdom on the right that her advocacy is a cynical move toward the political center does a disservice, I believe, both to her and other Democrats that the President needs desperately to maintain our commitment to Iraq. If the longshot chances of the Democrats to win back the Senate next year come to fruition, the President is going to need the support of Senator Clinton and others to prevent the cut and run Democrats from taking over Iraq policy.

And even if the Republicans, as expected, maintain control of both Houses of Congress, Hillary Clinton’s voice will be even more important given the media attention that will begin in anticipation of the 2008 Presidential race.

Does this mean that conservatives may want to consider supporting Hillary for President in 2008? Don’t worry, the weather forecast for hell is calling for drastically warming temperatures followed by a heat wave in the very near future.

UPDATE

Before I get a single email or comment about it, I will admit that yes, dear readers, I know very well that Charon the ferryman took people across the River Acheron and not Styx but hey! The mis-identification is indelibly etched into popular culture so I decided to take advantage of it.

How’s that for pre-emptive defense?

The speech given by President Bush at the Naval Academy yesterday outlining his plan for victory in Iraq was a brilliant exposition of both a rationale for our being there as well as clear strategy for victory. The President always seems to rise to the occasion during these set-piece talks and as John Hindraker points out (as well as Norman Podhoretz) Bush’s careful annunciation of his vision during these speeches has been one of the more remarkable aspects of his presidency. Perhaps no President since Wilson has spent as much time and effort in communicating an overall strategic outlook about what America’s place in the world should be and how the forces of history can be tapped to aid us in our war against the fanatical Islamists who seek to destroy us.

But the speech, like other efforts by the President recently, is falling on deaf ears. This is mostly his fault as he has allowed his political opponents to construct an Iraq narrative (almost totally at odds with the reality of what is happening on the ground) that has now taken hold with the great majority of the American people. I say it is the President’s fault because Bush has failed in the #1 area where Presidents - especially a President at war - simply cannot afford to fail; he has failed to forcefully and consistently remind the American people of why we are in Iraq and what is at stake if we lose. Instead, for months he ceded the job to his surrogates, not all of whom did he or his administration credit not to mention muddying the waters considerably regarding the strength of our commitment to victory.

It was only when Congress itself indicated a desire to usurp his authority as Commander in Chief by attempting to manage the war from Capitol Hill did the President rouse himself. First, with a defense of his actions prior to going to war and now a clear delineation of what constitutes victory, the President has finally come out from behind his desk and begun to fight.

It is unclear as to how the situation can be retrieved at this point. So much of his opponent’s narrative has been accepted as fact - we’re losing, we can’t win, Bush lied, the place is a complete mess, etc. - that only some dramatic event on the ground in Iraq such as some insurgent groups giving up and agreeing to work within a democratic framework will change the dynamic of the national conversation on the war and allow for revision of “conventional wisdom.”

Part of the problem is the President’s credibility which has been successfully challenged by his political opponents with plenty of assistance from the media. The President’s trustworthiness which was one of his strengths in last year’s election, has fallen like a stone in recent polls, hovering around 40% from a high last November in the upper 50’s. The sad fact is that the American people do not believe or trust the President at this point. History has shown that a President’s credibility can, in fact, be resurrected but that it takes time. And unless the President ’s pronouncements on Iraq can be seen as reflecting what is truly going on there, the President is in danger of losing at least the Senate and possibly even the House in next year’s elections.

So despite a brilliant speech, the President may just as well have been giving it to an empty room. Until other factors working against the President can be blunted, support for the war and for victory in Iraq will be held hostage to the forces of negativism, defeatism, and political posturing.

A sad state of affairs, that. But one that the President has mostly himself to blame.

Citing bad play calling by Philadelphia Eagles coach Andy Reid, Senator Arlen Specter (Busybody-PA) has threatened to convene a hearing of his Judiciary Subcommittee to investigate why the coach called a “PRO RIGHT Z-CRASH 38 SWEEP TRAP” instead of a “PRO LEFT 32 BLAST” on 4th and 2 in the third quarter of last Sunday’s game.

Shaking with anger, Specter said an investigation was called for because “any idiot” could see that the Packers had flooded the strong side, rolling up the safety’s and overlapping a linebacker while shooting the gaps with their D-linemen.

“I threw my beer at the TV screen I was so mad,” said the 75-year old Senator.

Specter also announced that he may hold hearings into the Terrel Owens affair to discover whether or not the penalties meted out to the controversial wide receiver for his extraordinarily stupid actions constituted a violation of anti-trust laws.

“What good is it if I have this subcommittee and can’t stick my nose where it doesn’t belong every once in a while?” Specter asked.

Specter says that he is concerned that football teams are not as responsive to input from fans - or from Congress for that matter - as they should be.

“Football teams are becoming entirely too independent. Play calling such as we saw on Sunday is the direct result of Coach Reid ignoring input from knowledgeable fans like me and I think an investigation is called for,” the Senator said.

Specter would neither confirm or deny a report that he telephoned the stadium on Sunday and demanded to be put through to the offensive coordinator Brad Childress. A telephone operator at the stadium has been quoted as saying that immediately following the unsuccessful attempt on 4th down, someone she described as “a real loon” and identifying himself as a Senator from Pennsylvania called the stadium switchboard demanding to be placed in contact with Coordinator Childress.

“He was sputtering about how bad the call was,” said the operator who wished to remain anonymous. “I connected him to the concession stand under the north end zone,” she giggled.

A spokesman for Sportservice, Inc., owner of the concession stand, said that an employee has been disciplined for taking the call and impersonating the offensive coordinator. He reportedly told the Senator to “go climb a tree” when Specter complained about the 4th down call.

A source in Specter’s office has said that the Senator is also interested in investigating other calls made by Reid during the game, especially the play in the 1st quarter where it was 4th and less than a yard on Philly’s own 28 yard line and…