Now that public attention no longer is occupied by Washington's fiscal seizures, the monstrosity that is ObamaCare is front and center. And even the administration-forgiving New York Times reported last week that there were troubling signs from the start with the $400 million “one-stop, click-and-go hub for citizens seeking health insurance.” According to one insurance exec, “These are not glitches. The extent of the problems is pretty enormous.” Gee, where have we heard that before? ... While Congress stewed in its own juices over the debt ceiling and partial government shutdown, some of the most pointed mockery of the unfolding dysfunction came from — where else? — China, where the state media depicted the U.S. as a beggar, according to The Washington Times. Reportedly, Chinese commerce official Mei Xinyu said America's “gentlemen” are not concerned about how their “monkey business” impacted the world. To which, in short order, the free-spending Obama administration will ask, “Brother, can you spare a dime?” ... Hillary Clinton didn't exactly twist the knife. But she sure put it to Vice President Joe Biden in recently discussing the Osama bin Laden raid, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. More than once she mentioned the veep's opposition to the attack on the al-Qaida chief's compound while noting that she and former CIA Director Leon Panetta fiercely advocated it, according to an account of her speech to a business association, which was closed to the press.
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.