As the oil spill in Louisiana began to spread, Obama’s first reaction was to play golf. Now as the oil spill grows into a full blown disaster, Obama is scrambling to appear to be serious. The White House released a picture showing Obama on the phone allegedly talking to someone about something other than a tee time.

Louisiana does know something about oil spills. The problem is that the Obama administration is blocking them from implementing them. Gov. Bobby Jindal expressed his frustration at the Federal government:

“We know we have to take action and take matters into our own hands if we are going to win this fight to protect our coast,”

Jindal does have a plan:

“We have only two options: We can fight the battle of removing oil in our thousands of miles of fragmented wetlands that serve as a critical nursery for wildlife or we can stop the oil 15 to 20 miles off of our coast at sand booms. Every day we are not given the authorization to move forward and create more of these sand booms is another day where that choice is made for us and more and more miles of our shore are hit by oil.”

They are waiting for Federal approval to implement their plans but the Obama adminstration is not responding:

What the controversy doesn’t explain, however, is why the federal government has been so slow in approving cleanup operations. Is it the inertia that afflicts any bureaucratic operation — even one dedicated to resolving an emergency? Or are federal officials worried about the broader impact that plans like the sand booms may have on the coastal environment?

At issue is a Corps of Engineers environmental impact report. A reasonable person cannot help but wonder what they’re thinking. It’s hard to believe that allowing more oil to reach the shores could be less damaging than creating sand berms. To his credit, Jindal plans on acting even without Federal approval.

Federal response has been fragmented and incoherent, so much so that Democrat stalwarts such as James Carville have voiced their criticism.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar sought to make clear how tough the administration is:

“BP is charged with capping the leaking oil well and paying for the response and for the recovery without limitation. They will be held accountable. We will keep our boot on their neck until the job gets done.”

Salazar threatened to “push out” BP but Coast Guard Commandant Thad Allen noted that only oil companies have the expertise to deal with this kind of situation.

Such is the exasperation of Louisiana officials that Billy Nungesser, the president of Plaquemines Parish stated:

“There’s been a failure of leadership on all levels. Who in the hell is in charge?”

The more cynical of those among us might think that what the Obama adminstration holds most important is something other than the environment:

“Take charge, avoid blame”

In the aftermath of Katrina, George Bush stood up and accepted the blame for the federal failures. I think before this is over, Obama will do the same.

Blame Bush, that is.

During first 40 days of Katrina, Bush made 7 visits to Gulf Coast…
So far on Day 36 of BP oil leak, Obama has made 1 visit to disaster area…(Drudge)

What was it Obama said about Bush’s response?

“I am especially glad to come back here because I remember four years ago, right after the storm, a lot of people felt forgotten,” Obama tells a New Orleans crowd in 2009.

He bashed Bush as “a President who only saw people from a window of an airplane instead of down here on the ground.”

IBD details what many of us already know about this economic crisis we are in. That being the fact that the genesis of it lay at the feet of Democrats. Most thought it was the fault of Clinton, but in fact it goes back a bit further back to the single worst President in recent memory….Jimmy Carter: (h/t Newsbusters)

To hear today’s Democrats, you’d think all this started in the last couple years. But the crisis began much earlier. The Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, mostly in minority areas.

Age-old standards of banking prudence got thrown out the window. In their place came harsh new regulations requiring banks not only to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, but to do so on the basis of race.

These well-intended rules were supercharged in the early 1990s by President Clinton. Despite warnings from GOP members of Congress in 1992, Clinton pushed extensive changes to the rules requiring lenders to make questionable loans.

~~~

Failure to comply meant your bank might not be allowed to expand lending, add new branches or merge with other companies. Banks were given a so-called “CRA rating” that graded how diverse their lending portfolio was.

~~~

In the name of diversity, banks began making huge numbers of loans that they previously would not have. They opened branches in poor areas to lift their CRA ratings.

Meanwhile, Congress gave Fannie and Freddie the go-ahead to finance it all by buying loans from banks, then repackaging and securitizing them for resale on the open market.

That’s how the contagion began.

With those changes, the subprime market took off. From a mere $35 billion in loans in 1994, it soared to $1 trillion by 2008.

Everyone should read the article from beginning to end….lots of detail. While the MSM has been busy blaming the collapse of some of our financial businesses to Republicans they have ignored the true start of the thing, which should surprise no one. Bush and McCain warned of this mess years ago and our Congress critters did nothing.

The U.N.’s chief nuclear watchdog, Mohamed El Baradei (not exactly a guy in the tank for Bush), in an interview with Al-Arabiya TV, said, quite explicitly, that Iran will be able to produce a nuclear weapon in six months to a year. Via lgf.

Muhammad Al-Baradei: If Iran wants to turn to the production of nuclear weapons, it must leave the NPT, expel the IAEA inspectors, and then it would need at least… Considering the number of centrifuges and the quantity of uranium Iran has…

Interviewer: How much time would it need?

Muhammad Al-Baradei: It would need at least six months to one year. Therefore, Iran will not be able to reach the point where we would wake up one morning to an Iran with a nuclear weapon.

Interviewer: Excuse me, I would like to clarify this for our viewers. If Iran decides today to expel the IAEA from the country, it will need six months…

Muhammad Al-Baradei: Or one year, at least…

Interviewer:… to produce [nuclear] weapons?

Muhammad Al-Baradei: It would need this period to produce a weapon, and to obtain highly-enriched uranium in sufficient quantities for a single nuclear weapon.

With such a near-term threat looming, Bill Kristol suggests that Bush, thinking a President Obama may not have the stones to take on Iran, may decide to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities before he leaves office. Via Ace.

Then John Bolton, another guy with some connections in the White House, echoes Kristol and says Israel will do the deed after the election.

Israel, however, still had a determination to prevent a nuclear Iran, he argued. The “optimal window” for strikes would be between the November 4 election and the inauguration on January 20, 2009.

“The Israelis have one eye on the calendar because of the pace at which the Iranians are proceeding both to develop their nuclear weapons capability and to do things like increase their defences by buying new Russian anti-aircraft systems and further harden the nuclear installations .

“They’re also obviously looking at the American election calendar. My judgement is they would not want to do anything before our election because there’s no telling what impact it could have on the election.”

But waiting for either Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, or his Republican opponent John McCain to be installed in the White House could preclude military action happening for the next four years or at least delay it.

Note that the Bolton piece also references Bill Kristol’s comments and the fact that Israel is polishing the guns.

Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Several American officials said the Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop the military’s capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iran’s nuclear program.

More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters participated in the maneuvers, which were carried out over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece during the first week of June, American officials said.

Sure seems to be some orchestrated leaking going on. My guess is that Bush would have Israel go in before the election, so that when Iran flips its lid and all hell (actual and potential) breaks loose, voters will choose the tested McCain and Obama will be sunk.

Also find Bill Dupray at The Patriot Room

Pat Buchanan has provided the lefties with some nice ammo. He, like Bruce Ramsey of the Seattle Times, believes that Hitler was reasonable in demanding territory from a sovereign country. First, he distinguishes appeasement and indicts Chamberlain for committing it in Munich.

Appeasement is the name given to what Neville Chamberlain did at Munich in September 1938. Rather than fight Germany in another great war — to keep 3.5 million Germans under a Czech rule they despised — he agreed to their peaceful transfer to German rule. With these Germans went the lands their ancestors had lived upon for centuries, German Bohemia, or the Sudetenland.

Chamberlain’s negotiated deal with Hitler averted a European war — at the expense of the Czech nation. That was appeasement.

Then he goes wildly off the reservation.

German tanks, however, did not roll into Poland until a year later, Sept. 1, 1939. Why did the tanks roll? Because Poland refused to negotiate over Danzig, a Baltic port of 350,000 that was 95 percent German and had been taken from Germany at the Paris peace conference of 1919, in violation of Wilson’s 14 Points and his principle of self-determination.

Hitler had not wanted war with Poland. He had wanted an alliance with Poland in his anti-Comintern pact against Joseph Stalin.

But the Poles refused to negotiate. Why? Because they were a proud, defiant, heroic people and because Neville Chamberlain had insanely given an unsolicited war guarantee to Poland. If Hitler invaded, Chamberlain told the Poles, Britain would declare war on Germany.

From March to August 1939, Hitler tried to negotiate Danzig. But the Poles, confident in their British war guarantee, refused. So, Hitler cut his deal with Stalin, and the two invaded and divided Poland.

The cost of the war that came of a refusal to negotiate Danzig was millions of Polish dead, the Katyn massacre, Treblinka, Sobibor, Auschwitz, the annihilation of the Home Army in the Warsaw uprising of 1944, and 50 years of Nazi and Stalinist occupation, barbarism and terror.

Poland was a sovereign nation. Treaties following a war routinely redefine boundaries. For Hitler to unilaterally decide, after Germany started, and lost, World War I, that he didn’t like the deal, does not justify redrawing the map by force. By Buchanan’s logic, Mexico would be justified invading Texas because they didn’t think that war worked out all that well for them either.

So we have the Buchanan Doctrine: If you don’t negotiate with an adversary for territory he thinks is rightfully his, then you should expect to be invaded.

Buchanan makes a lot of sense a lot of the time, but not this time.

H/T Little Green Footballs

Bill Dupray at The Patriot Room

Hey Bill Clinton! This is the way to do it, not this way.

The Times writes that McCain is going to use Bush to raise money, as Bill is, but won’t use him for anything else. Which is how it should be. Reagan did the same for Bush Sr. and apparently Bush Jr. will be doing it this way for McCain.

Of course the writer had to put her spin on it:

But even as the consensus was that Mr. McCain needed to “stand in the sun” on his own, as one adviser put it, without the large shadow cast by Mr. Bush, left unsaid was the difficult calculus the McCain campaign faces: Using Mr. Bush enough to try to make the tough sell of Mr. McCain to conservatives but not so much that he will drive away the independents and some moderate Democrats that Mr. McCain is counting on in November.

What was said?

“What an incumbent president can do is help a new nominee with fund-raisers, maybe with unifying the party, maybe with getting out the vote in Republican areas,” said Charles Black, a top adviser to Mr. McCain and an outside adviser to the White House who has been part of every Republican presidential campaign since 1976. “But the important thing to remember is, the nominee is on their own. And no president, no matter how popular and effective politically, can carry somebody.”

Ed Gillespie, the White House counselor to Mr. Bush and the chairman of the Republican National Committee during Mr. Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign, echoed Mr. Black. “Senator McCain has his own identity,” Mr. Gillespie said in an interview, “and he’s going to be campaigning as John McCain and the things that John McCain believes in.”

Got to love these Times writers.

Left unsaid….give me a break.

The other news of the day was Bush endorsing McCain….a bit earlier then expected:

Former President George H.W. Bush endorsed John McCain today as the man best prepared to succeed his son, saying the Arizona senator has the “right values and experience to guide our nation forward.”

“No one is better prepared to lead our nation at these trying times than Senator John McCain,” the 41st president said at a news conference in Houston as McCain stood at his side.

The former president and McCain said Republicans need to draw on a broad base of voters to keep the White House.

“We as a party must unite and move forward and attract not only members of our own party but independents and so-called Reagan Democrats,” McCain said.

Ed Morrissey:

Usually, former presidents stay out of primary contests, but obviously Bush 41 wants to see an end to the divisiveness in the GOP. Having the establishment line up with McCain provides a gentle prod to Huckabee.

It shouldn’t be so gentle actually. The man is done, get out of the way and let the Republican establishment get cooking on this campaign while Hillary and Obama slug it out.

I mean, as Daniel Gilgoff writes, Huckabees supporters share no small blame for allowing McCain to get the nomination.

Shadow Warriors: The Untold Story of Traitors, Saboteurs, and the Party of Surrender, a book by Kenneth Timmerman, is chock full of facts on how various people within our State Department and Intelligence agencies undermined the war. As I did with The Looming Tower I am going to take excerpts from the book for the readers to check out and digest. The first one being about those sixteen words and the Niger deal. You know those words. Tenet wrote in his book, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA:

Later some would allege that this handful of words was critical to the decision that led the nation to war. Contemporaneous evidence doesn’t support that, but just try convincing people of that today.

But as Timmerman notes:

The real question is not whether the administration “lied” about the prewar intelligence. The Robb-Silberman Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, which delivered a 610-page report on the subject in March 2005, stated categorically that the CIA continued to believe in the authenticity of the Niger documents when Bush made the sppech, and that “no one in the Intelligence Community had asked that the line [the famous sixteen words] be removed.” The CIA continued to claim that it never actually looked at the documents until after the scandal broke, because they had other sources for the conclusion that Saddam Hussein was seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

A later Senate Select intelligence committee report, issued May 25, 2007, revealed that “the Intelligence community used or cleared the Niger-Iraq uranium intelligence fifteen times before the President’s State of the Union address and four times after, saying in several papers that Iraq was “vigorously pursuing uranium from Africa” [emphasis in the original]. According to Richard Perle, Sire Richard Dearlove, who was head of British intelligence at the time, insisted over breakfast in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in early 2007 that he still stood by the original story. “Dearlove told me that the basis he used for the assessment that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger had nothing to do with the bogus documents,” Perle told me.

The real question was whether the Niger documents were a plant, and elaborate sting operation by the President’s enemies aimed at leading him into an error they would later claim he had known about all along.

It all started with a former Italian policeman named Rocco Martino whom the French intelligence codenamed Giacomo.

…he had worked for Egyptian intelligence and the Italian military, and in 1996 became a paid informer for the French Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieur (DGSE). In 1999, he provided his French intelligence clients with genuine documents that revealed how Niger planned to expand trade with Iraq, apparently through clandestine uranium sales.

The French continued to express interest in Niger, so Martino looked for more documents. Through an old contact at Italy’s military intelligence agency, Colonel Antonia Nucera, he hooked up with a sixty-year old Italian secretary at the Niger embassy. She was on the books of SISMI (Servizio per la Informazione e la Sicurezza Militare) as a paid informer, code-named La Signora.

“I limited myself to supplying Martino with copies of embassy documents in which there were traces of Niger agreements, in particular with Iraq,” she later told Rome judge Franco Ionta.

In 2001 there was a break-in to the Niger embassy and the place was ransacked. At the time they believed nothing of value had been stolen but soon after the breakin the fake Niger documents began to appear.

Some accounts say Martino forged them while others say SISMI did and had Martino peddle them.

“I began to have my suspicions about Rocco Martino after the theft in the embassy in 2001,” said La Signora. What tipped her off was Martino’s insistence on having a copy of a Niger-Iraq uranium contract that didn’t exit. “Martino always told me that if ever he got hold of an eventual contract between the two parties he would have gained a considerable sum from a certain intelligence company in Brussel to which he belonged.” Everyone understood she was referring to French intelligence, the DGSE.

In the summer of 2001 Martino handed the forged document to the DGSE after which the French told the US State Department that they had information that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium from Niger and the rest is history.

But all that is not the real story here. The real story is how people inside our own government conspired to keep the fact that these were forgeries a secret.

On October 15, 2001, the day Berlusconi finally met with Bush in the Oval Office, the new head of SISMI, Nicolo Pollari, briefed the CIA Rome station chief on the alleged Niger-Iraq uranium deal. Pollari knew he had to play his cards close to the vest, because signatures and named had been altered on the Niger documents. So rather then give the doctored documents to CIA station chief Jeff Castelli, he let him look through them and scribble a few hasty notes on their content.

Castelli’s report to Langley formed the basis for the first intelligence reports on the Niger deal which was picked up by Castelli’s division chief Tyler Drumheller who later put it into the daily Senior Executive Intelligence Brief on October 18, 2001.

Pollari went back to Castelli three days later with a page and a half note, explaining that the “information comes from a credible source,” a reference to the SISMI informant, La Signora.

Castelli forwarded three reports on three seperate occasions to Drumheller. After he retired from the Agency in February 2005, Drumheller became an outspoken critic of the Bush administration, and claimed that Castelli considered the Niger reports “bullshit.”

Neither Castelli nor Drumheller ever tried to expose them as forgeries, however. On the contrary: their reporting helped to validate the forged Niger documents, as the Robb-Silberman Commission investigating U.S. intelligence on Iraq’s WMD program later found.

It was an extraordinary accomplishment by the shadow warriors. They had taken fakes and laundered them through the system, all the while claiming their innocence.

Meanwhile, Rocco Martino went to London, where he delivered a copy of the Niger documents to MI6. British intelligence contributed its own reports to Washington based at least in part on the faked documents. These reports also flowed through the CIA’s European division chief, Tyler Drumheller. This created the illusion of multiple, independent reporting streams on the alleged deal. Bush ultimately relied on the British reports, summarized in a public dossier released by Prime Minister Tony Blair’s office in September 2002, for the basis of the sixteen words on Iraq’s uranium procurement efforts that made its way into his State of the Union message in January 2003.

Later, the Director of the Office of Strategic, Proliferation, and Military Affairs in the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), Greg Thielman, would tell reporters that he had seen through the scam from the start. Italian reporters asked him what SISMI’s role in the whole thing was:

“SISMI, like the CIA and the entire Anglo-Saxon intelligence community, is ready and willing to satisy the hawks in the U.S. administration.”

But Thielman’s description didn’t fit the likes of CIA officers Jeff Castelli or Tyler Drumheller, who opposed the “hawks of the U.S. administration.” It was another careful piece of subterfuge by the shadow warriors.

After leaving INR in September 2002, Thielman revealed his true colors, going to work for the Democratic staff of the Senate intelligence committee. By this point, [Carl] Levin was gearing up to spring his trap. And all the while this extraordinary intelligence coup against the President by CIA and State Department intelligence officers and their accomplices in Congress was being set in motion, no one pursued the very real contacts between Saddam’s nuclear advisor, Wissam al-Zahawie, and the Niger government.

More to come.

Can’t really say I’m shocked or surprised at the MSM’s reporting of the SOTU tonight.

For years, President Bush and his advisers expressed frustration that the White House received little credit for the nation’s strong economic performance because of public discontent about the Iraq war. Today, the president is getting little credit for improved security in Iraq, as the public increasingly focuses on a struggling U.S. economy.

That is the problem Bush faces as he prepares to deliver his seventh and probably final State of the Union address tonight. For the first time in four years, he will come before Congress able to report some progress in tamping down violence in Iraq. Yet the public appears to have moved on from the war — and possibly from Bush himself.

The economy has supplanted Iraq as the top public concern, and with voters shifting their focus toward the presidential primaries, Bush faces a steep challenge in persuading Americans to heed his words on the war, economic policy or any other issue, according to administration officials, lawmakers and outside observers.

“Very large segments of the American people have written him off already and have moved on to the next chapter,” said Jeremy Rosner, a Clinton White House aide and Democratic pollster. Even some of the Republican presidential candidates appear eager to distance themselves from the president.

The MSM worked diligently to blame Bush for all the ills on the war but when it turned around, largely due to Bush’s actions, they either ignored him or wrote that it’s because of others (The Dems coming into power, etc.). Now they muse about how the public has pretty much ignored him lately. I wonder how that could be?

For years we would hardly hear a peep from the MSM on the great and growing economy of ours. Give Bush credit for it? Blasphemy.

The economy turning a little sideways, now its throw Bush overboard.

“Very large segments of the American people have written him off already and have moved on to the next chapter,”

Are you kidding me? The left and the MSM wrote him off after the election in 2000 and have never looked back. Of course he proved to be a thorn in the side of those who wanted a strong Socialist society and our nations reputation to be that of cowards. After 9/11, when our economy should of be shattered, he turned it around and brought prosperity. He freed Afghanistan and Iraq from tyranny and gave their people freedom. He put two outstanding conservative judges onto the Supreme Court. The list of accomplishments is long.

Crickets from the MSM.

But just remember this simple fact. The MSM wrote off Bush as insignificant after the last November election. How well did that work out? He and his party didn’t allow the slight majority of Democrats in Congress to push them around. Instead he pushed them around. Getting everything he wanted.

Now at the start of the 110th Congress the MSM wants to write him off once again.

They never learn.

UPDATE

Vets For Freedom released this today:

Last year, President Bush used his State of the Union address to make the case for a “surge” in Iraq, in order to regain the offensive and defeat Al-Qaeda. One year later, sectarian attacks and deaths in Baghdad have decreased more than 90%, Iraqi civilian casualties have dropped 75% throughout the country, and monthly coalition casualties have dropped dramatically. Political progress has sprung up at the local level, and national-level reconciliation is beginning to take place. Without this bold move—and bold speech—America would not be succeeding in Iraq today.

As the President prepares to address the nation tonight, and as the brave men and women who wear our nation’s uniform continue to pursue victory in Iraq, Afghanistan, and all the battlefields of the Global War on Terror, Vets for Freedom proudly supports the Commander-in-Chief as he continues to do everything he can to pursue a more peaceful world, and a more secure America.

“September 11th, 2001 marked a turning point for our country in which the necessity of confronting Islamic Extremism became a reality,” said Pete Hegseth, Executive Director of Vets for Freedom. “President Bush has been a steadfast voice of freedom and democracy across the world, understanding that peace can only come through strength. In order to ensure security in this country, it is necessary to take the fight to the enemy, and as veterans of the Global War on Terror, we are proud to have carried out the orders of our Commander-in-Chief.”

I liked this answer from Fred when asked by a women if he, as a Christian, would continue Bush’s AID’s initiative:

“Christ didn’t tell us to go to the government and pass a bill to get some of these social problems dealt with. He told us to do it,” Thompson said.

“The government has its role, but we need to keep firmly in mind the role of the government, and the role of us as individuals and as Christians on the other.”

He received a round of applause for his answer, and went on to expand on the role of government in fighting AIDS and other diseases.

“I’m not going to go around the state and the country with regards to a serious problem and say that I’m going to prioritize that,” he said.

“With people dying of cancer, and heart disease, and children dying of leukemia still, I got to tell you – we’ve got a lot of problems here, and we all may have our one that’s affected us the most, but it’s a broad array. And a president who will tell you the truth is that we have to look across the board and do what we can and what we should based upon the severity of the problem and the chances that our research money will do some good in these areas.”

Outstanding.

This goes along with the research that has been done about charitable giving from different sectors of the country, with Republicans leading in the most given category. While liberals believe its the role of government to fix the worlds ills, I believe its the role of the community to do that.

Meanwhile did you hear? He attacked McCain once:

And again on the Glenn Beck show:

How do you explain with conservatives going out to vote, how are they supporting John McCain? What is this — where is this coming from?

SENATOR THOMPSON: I think the basis of it is national security, national defense. John was right, I think, with regard to Iraq and he stood tough during tough times and I think he turned out to be right. And I was the same place the whole time and have been. We agree on that. But John is wrong on some other important things and he was wrong when he voted against the Bush tax cuts.

GLENN: But wait a minute. I mean –

SENATOR THOMPSON: He says he’s changed his mind about that now and, you know, sobeit. But, you know, I was there during part of that time and I voted the other way. I believed the other way then, I believe the other way now. He’s certainly wrong with regard to the immigration bill that they tried to get the American people sign off on last year and they gave a resounding no and now everybody’s getting tough on the border. But on taxes and immigration, especially, you know, I think he’s wrong. But so is Huckabee as far as that’s concerned.

GLENN: But he’s also wrong with McCain/Lieberman where he wants to sign treaties for global warming. He wants to give away sovereignty on global warming. This guy is not a conservative.

SENATOR THOMPSON: No, I think he’s in the wrong direction on that, too. I think that that’s absolutely true. But, you know, he’s like everybody else. You know, he has his strong suits and his weak suits. But I think that the direction that he and Huckabee and others really, I think Giuliani and where Romney has been in the past all are going in a so-called moderate direction, which is going to lead to, you know, so-called big government conservativism or bigger government conservativism anyway.

And even more reason to pray John McCain doesn’t get the nomination:

“No drilling in ANWR, nor in the Everglades, nor off the coast of Florida, nor off the coast of Florida… If states want to have drilling off their coast, as Louisiana does, that’s their right. As a federalist, I will respect that as well.”

“To think that drilling in ANWR is the solution to our incredible energy needs is frankly, is not keeping in the reality of what’s there, and what it would take to get it out.”

This guy hasn’t heard a Democrat talking point he didn’t like it seems.

UPDATE

Fred on Hannity tonight:

Ending comment by Sean – “Remind me never to debate you!” This was after Sean asked the same question about four times and Fred finally called him on it.