I think she's being something I don't say in polite company, but that's just me.

Be nice Scott. I think Deb is misguided, wrong headed, blinded by the right, but she is sincere and my email exchanges with her have been interesting.

To me, she sounds like she's being disingenuous.

Well Norm, if forgetting to reply to you before commenting on a post I just happened to come across--in the moment--is "disingenuous" or (as I'm sure Scott would say "a c--nt" because I can't fathom what else one wouldn't say in polite company, even a "bitch" is a female dog), the color me guilty!

I WAS going to respond to you in MUCH more detail than I did on Mike's site, but you've beaten me (like a blunt instrument) to the punch, apparently for the entertainment of your readers. I was going to give you specifics, line by line, of the deflections I found, and the gaps I noticed in your "answers."

When I said "presumably" I mean it literally. You said you answered the questions, and I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you at least believed you had written answers, I just didn't agree that they did, in fact, answer my questions. If anything, you RESPONDED to my questions, but I judge "answers" by a higher standard, so sorry.

I would appreciate it if you stop misrepresenting me on your blog for the amusement of your mean-spirited readers. I have not done this to you, and would not either. It's not constructive, it's smug, and it reflects a total lack of respect for the civility with which I have attempted to treat you--despite the fact that I think you are glib, sarcastic, cynical and WRONG about many many things, not least of which is my motivation for doing just about anything.

You must not need to work out--you get so much exercise jumpting to conclusions about people.

Go label someone else, you too Scott, there are plenty of people you hate out there, go nuts, but do me a favor and leave me alone.

Definition of "presumed:" That can be presumed or taken for granted; reasonable as a supposition.

As I said above, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that your INTENTIONS were pure, that you tried to answer the questions, but that, in fact, you had not. What differentiates an answer from a deflection? Well, before you haul off and say that I would call anything I did not agree with a "deflection," let me give you an example. If you answer the question, "If war is not the answer, what is" with this direct answer: "Put 5000 armed inspectors in who have the authority to shoot anyone who refuses to cooperate with their efforts to disarm Saddam," that's an answer. Even if you just said "Set up a permanent inspection regime putting tens of thousands of inspectors into Iraq, occupying the nation in perpetuity" that's another answer. I think both are wrong-headed solutions, but they are direct answers.

On the other hand, if you say "I'll get to that in a minute, but first let me..." and you don't really come back to anything resembling a direct answer, but merely ask more questions or comment on the complexity of the issues (something of which we are ALL keenly aware), you have NOT ANSWERED me.

If I ask you why the EU and others criticize the US and Israel disproportionately, and you basically give me a description of HOW they are doing it (through more extensive media coverage) combined with a description of our so-called "claims to moral highground" (unsubstantiated by specifics I might add), you have not answered, you have described a situation and a gross assumption. When did the US or Israel ever claim to be perfect? Because only claims to perfection could induce the kinds of vitriolic criticism thrown at us by our so-called "allies." Saying that we are more moral than our enemies is a statement of fact, it is not a claim to pefection. It's not hard to be more moral or humane than Saddam Hussein, even you can agree with that. You may feel the claim is founded on shaky ground, but it is STILL valid because it does not quantify itself beyond that. If you think it does, and think that providing freedom for the vast majority of our people (US and Israel) and using the rule of law to govern does NOT in fact make us more moral than our current enemies who work hard to torture and kill innocent people, then you and I see the world very differently indeed.

Meeting standards is an ongoing process, we aren't doing it perfectly here, nor are we doing it perfectly around the world, but the difference between the US and Israel and our enemies is that we are TRYING to do it at all. Our "allies" France and Germany claim moral high ground all the time, are they living up to their claims? Why not criticize them for Ivory Coast (you never answered me). They have no problem claiming to be more peaceful, more rational than we--they have no problem calling us "cowboys," what are they? There's a reason Lincoln called our system an "experiment" because it is, and it's not done--here or in Israel--and if you think it's hard here, try maintaining freedom in a land under constant attack! I submit that your "answer" on this one is more of a convenient excuse. If I tell you I'm a good writer, and you then justify mocking my writing by saying "you said you were a good writer and you spelled this word wrong" that doesn't mean I AM a bad writer, it means I'm a bad speller. You don't have to work too hard these days to take the moral highground in the middle east, that's all I'm saying.

Now let's look at your discussion/answer surrounding the self-loathing of Americans. All you did was say "the right uses nasty words too!" That does NOT answer my question. Sure, you described the thought process immediately preceeding the speech pathology of using hateful language to articulate thoughts (i.e., "I'm too lazy to explain why, so let me just use hyperbole"), but you did not explain the underlying reasons for the thoughts in the first place! Are we back to that expecting perfection from our country thing again?

When I asked for solutions, not wishful thinking, you did NOT provide any! You simple repeated that you disagree with my assessment of the inspections as failures! Substantiate your assessment! I can back mine up, can you? Show me the success? Show me another way that 1441 can be backed up with "serious consequences" that aren't just MORE of the same. What ARE serious consequences Norm? Was the UN disingenuous when they passed this (and the 16 other previous )resolutions? Were they disingenuous in allowing Syria to run a pipeline into Iraq right under their noses (and in direct violation of UN sanctions)? Can we, or should we trust these same people to keep their word? And if not, how can we trust the man who (to use your phrase) "takes advantage of their ineptitude?"

I'm sorry Norm, I had high hopes, I really did. High hopes that you would step up and be courageous and say something specific, not just wishy-washy repetitions of "American isn't as good as I expect her to be, and inspections aren't failing." If I wanted those answers, I could get them from Susan Sarandon! I gave you a little more credit than that. I probably still would have disagreed, but I would have commended you on your courage if you'd at least said "Europeans hate us because they have their own agendas and we aren't playing the game they want us to play" or if you'd described a different non-war solution than the status quo, which only ostriches think is working.

I find it ironic that you give more credit to Saddam Hussein than to your own country! We're not moral enough, and he's not immoral enough--funny! He can lie, cheat, steal, dissemble and deceive for 12 long years, and we can have incontrovertable evidence of all of it, and you are STILL willing to believe we can leave things as they are and be safe. At the same time, your own country can admit past mistakes, and try to learn from them and move on to do the right thing--finally--after 12 years of putzing around and blaming everyone else for the problem we helped create, and it's not good enough for you!

I'm laughing through my tears it's so perfectly ridiculous.

Where to begin? First lets correct your first misstatement. I did not accuse you of being disingenuous, at that point I didn't know whether you were being disingenuous or not. If you read the post, you read that I said you had made no specific responses then and allowed that perhaps they were yet to come. I was reserving judgment on your motives, though I did think it impolite to comment publicly before commenting on the post. It was possible to read into your remark that you had found no answers and were therefore not going to reply or that you were requesting the help of others. Was it also impolite to bring attention to your remarks before you had a chance to post? Yes, but I think no more so than you choosing to characterize my post publicly without giving any specific reasons. You accuse me of deflecting, not answering, well since you are so fond of dictionary definitions take this from Merriam Webster unabridged. Answer- something spoken or written in reply : a response to a question, call, summons, or appeal : a rejoinder to a remark, argument, or objection : a letter sent in return for one received : REPLY an honest answer to a fair question. So unless you are accusing me of being dishonest then I answered your questions. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that the answers were flawed in some way which I assume is what you mean by labeling them as deflections not as answers, but answers they are. If you are as you claim a stickler for language and you have special definitions for words, answer for example, you should define them before using them. In a discussion one has a right to expect commonly accepted definitions unless an alternative definition is offered. You raise further questions that deserve discussion, but I'm not sure it would be valuable. You accuse me of saying you were disingenuous, I did not. You say I said that Israel and the U.S. claim to be perfect, I did not. You say I give more credit to Saddam than to our own country, I do not. How is it possible to discuss the issues when you resort to misstatements such as these. There are important questions that deserve discussion. Will war turn out better than continued inspections, lets hope so since it seems inevitable that is the course we are embarked on. We will never know whether an enhanced inspection process, including U2 flights, perhaps a larger inspection force, a country that honors their own obligations under 1441, namely providing all available intelligence would make a difference. I'm not claiming Iraq isn't in technical violation of 1441, but that is not a reason to stop trying. The problem with inspections is that the Bush Administration refused to give them its full support. Whether they would have worked, whether adjustments could have been made to make them work we'll never know. It seems reasonably certain that the coming war will kill thousands, innocent thousands, just as innocent as those that died on 9/11. To not have exhausted all possibilities first is I think to take those lives unnecessarily. You must believe we have exhausted all attempts at a non-military solution. You must believe that the threat posed by Saddam is so immediate and threatening that the cost in innocent lives is worth acting now I don't. You seem to believe that disagreeing with the President is giving credit to Saddam I don't. If you want to continue the discussion either publicly or privately you'll need to wipe the smirk off your face and dry your tears or if you prefer I'll certainly grant the favor you've asked and leave you alone.

Start a home based day care system with our popular day care start up business kit!