The Obama administration has backed away from another red line — that Syria produce for international inspectors a list of its chemical weapons stockpile and facilities within seven days. That deadline was Saturday. And it was part and parcel to that much ballyhooed “breakthrough” deal that the United States cut with Russia. Parsed State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf: “We never said it was a hard and fast deadline.” Which, of course, is a blatant lie. No one should believe anything this administration says. ... Not only did Barack Obama's IRS illegally target conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status with hellish harassment, it engaged in clandestine surveillance of them even after its illegalities were exposed, investigators say. If it takes an old-fashioned public pillorying followed by tarring and feathering to bring the IRS to justice, then so be it. ... Ecotality Inc. is the latest Obama green energy venture to go belly up. Headed by Pitt graduate H. Raul Brar, the maker of electric car-charging stations now is in bankruptcy. It suckered the Department of Energy to give it nearly $127 million in public money. Which now is lining one very deep rathole. ... Patriot-News political writer Rob Vickers, in noting that Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Pat Toomey and Tom Ridge will or likely will be supporting Tom Corbett for re-election, refers to them as “the only ... prominent contemporary commonwealth Republican(s).” Suh-LAPPPP!
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.