From last night’s Fox News All-Stars.

On Obama’s upcoming health-care address to a joint session of Congress:

I think this speech has to be dramatic. It has to be a reset. It has to be a restaging of this debate, because he has lost Act One. It has got to be an opening curtain on Act Two, and it can’t just be a repetition of his old positions.
I think the way they are headed is to try to say — have the president do a nod to the discontent and the anxiety that was generated over the summer.
But then, I think if they are smart and politically cynical — which I think they are — what they will try to do is say that the reason the president could not be specific is because while negotiations were going on with Republicans, specifically the “Gang of Six” in the Senate, he wanted to not preclude any possible agreements or compromises.
But now that the Republicans have walked away — and I suspect he will attack Senators Grassley and Enzi specifically — and say: Well, now that the Republicans are going to be entirely obstructionists…now I will be specific, and now this summer of discontent — in which I had to be either evasive or ambiguous or at least open — is over. The Republicans have forced my hand, and now I’m going to say x, y and z.
But he has to say x, y, and z. He has to make a pronouncement on the public option, and he also has to make a critical strategic decision. Is this about cutting costs, which will destroy him in popular opinion, or does he ignore that now and make it all about expansion of coverage and guaranteeing of coverage?

On the British government’s role in the release of the Lockerbie bomber:

It is quite obvious that [in] all discussions about this terrorist, hovering over it and behind it and all around it, was considerations of British relations with Libya — which means British financial interests in Libya, which means oil.
We even have a letter from Jack Straw, who at the time was the justice minister, 2008, writing to the First Minister of Scotland, emphasizing how important relations between the U.K. and Libya are to Britain and to the entire world.
Now, why are justice ministers talking about international relations, unless the implication is obviously – in considering the release of this guy, keep in mind that relations between us and Muammar Gaddafi and Libya are important financially?
Now, what I want to say is that even though it is scandalous, we have to remember that the British in Iraq and Afghanistan have been stalwart allies and extremely supportive and sacrificial.
What is happening here happens all among the European…when it comes with dealing with specific acts of terror: They go soft, often in return for financial concessions, in dealings with Iran, with Libya, and with a lot of others. So there’s nothing new here except that in the Lockerbie case it was so obvious, public, and humiliating.