Share This Page

Verbatim

| Saturday, June 22, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

“Loyalty, in crime as in politics, is often sold short.”

­— Wes Pruden, editor emeritus of The Washington Times.

“Unlike his predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, (new Iranian President Hassan) Rowhani is not known for making incendiary and violent statements. But that may be a sign he intends to sweet-talk the West into lifting sanctions while giving nothing in return. The West's gullible leaders, President Obama in particular, and a business-hungry Europe anxious for trade deals might reward him for the change in tone.”

— from an editorial in Investor's Business Daily.

“The decision ... is a great example of how conservatives can be distracted by squirrels running past.”

— J. Christian Adams, writing at pjmedia.com, on the Supreme Court ruling invalidating citizen-verification requirements in Arizona for those using the federal registration form. Mr. Adams says the ruling preserves the right to still check for citizenship because Arizona can promote the state registration form instead.

“State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said she was ‘not sure' whether the Taliban is designated as a terrorist organization when a reporter pressed her on negotiations between the United States and the Islamist group during Tuesday's press briefing.”

— Meredith Dake, writing on Breitbart.com. Ms. Psaki's statement came within hours of a Taliban attack that killed four American soldiers in Afghanistan.

“Given the evidence so far revealed, the AG will likely resign in the dead of night on the Friday of the Labor Day weekend this September. He will try to disappear like smoke through the keyhole, but it would be nice if the Republicans could show him where the door is by convening impeachment hearings; the public deserves to know if their attorney general is a crook.”

— Dexter Wright, in the American Thinker, writing on Eric Holder.

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.