George Will has some questions for Kerry. Let's pretend for a minute that Kerry decided to answer them. Hmm…

You invoke the Commandment ["Honor thy father and thy mother"] to explain why you "will not cut" Social Security benefits. Does that include raising the retirement age, which Congress set at 65 in 1935, when the life expectancy of an American male was 62?

Does what "include" raising the retirement age? Where's your question? I'm guessing that you're asking me if I'd raise the retirement age, albeit in your own special way. Here is your answer. I've been pretty up front about where I stand on this. Looks like you wasted a question. Oops – watch it there, champ. It looks like your safety helmet is slipping over your eyes. If you can't see your spittle cup you won't be able to catch those long driblets of drool. There you go…who's a big boy!? Who's a big boy!? (ahem) Next question.

Regarding military action, your platform says "we will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake." But the platform's preceding paragraph denounces President Bush's "doctrine of unilateral pre-emption." If unilateralism is wrong, are you not committed to some sort of "green light from abroad"?

No. You see, unilateralism isn't "wrong". However, a "doctrine of unilateral pre-emption" is another matter altogether. See? It's not that hard to understand if you think about it. Perhaps if you pulled your cranium out of your colon you could actually think.

Are you glad that in 1981 Israel set back Iraq's nuclear weapons program with a unilateral pre-emptive attack on the reactor near Baghdad?

Yes I am. I'm also glad about the various sorties and bombing missions that we conducted in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan in the years (and decades) prior to September 11. I'm not opposed to unilateral or pre-emptive action, you galactic dollop of mental diarrhea. I'm only opposed to it when it's wrong and as an ideological doctrine. Try to understand that. Try. I know it's hard…but try.

Your platform says: "A nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk." But Iran's radical Islamist regime is undeterred by diplomatic hand-wringing about its acquisition of nuclear weapons, which may be imminent. Is pre-emptive military action against Iran feasible, or are its nuclear facilities too dispersed and hardened? What would you do other than accept Iran as a nuclear power?

Well, if "diplomatic hand-wringing" isn't working, perhaps we should take the little chimpanzee that's doing it by the scruff of his little chimp-neck and extradite him to Texas. Of course military action is "feasible", but it would also be "fucking dumb". What would I do? Hold on, you're not going to like this…I would talk to them. Unbelievable, isn't it? Shocking. You're probably asking yourself, "How can he possibly talk to the Muslimazoids!?" Idiot.

Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian says, "We have reached an internal consensus that insists on Taiwan being an independent sovereign country." Beijing's military chief recently said Taiwan will be reunified with the mainland by 2020, the first reunification deadline ever set. On an island physically similar to Taiwan, Beijing recently simulated an invasion. Would you respond with force — unilaterally, if necessary — to defend Taiwan?

No. See, I'm not completely insane.

The Clinton years were, you say, glorious because "we were not at war and young Americans were not deployed." Did not the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, followed by the attacks on the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole and the East African embassies mean we were at war but were uncomprehending? Have not scores of thousands of young Americans been deployed, ashore and on ships, since 1942?

No, dipshit, it didn't mean that at all. We weren't "at war" and if there was anyone that didn't comprehend that it was you. I knew it. The President knew it. The entire fucking country knew it. As for the my use of the word "deployed", well…you got me, you spineless ferret! I guess I should've said "deployed on a war footing" or some such linguistic qualifier. I just figured that since Bush said the "free societies are societies that don't develop weapons of mass terror" I could pretty much say whatever the fuck I want too, regardless of how retarded it may be. Sorry.

You supported humanitarian military interventions in Somalia, the Balkans and Haiti. Would you intervene militarily to stop the accelerating genocide in Sudan?

You bet I would, you sad little prick, if such a deployment were necessary. Only I wouldn't do it alone because I wouldn't have to. I would communicate with NATO and the U.N. and we would intervene in a prudent and measured way that wouldn't compromise our sovereignty (or Sudanese sovereignty) or mismanage the effort to such an extent that the U.S. must maintain an untenable commitment as permanent peace-keepers. However, to commit to a position on whether to use force as a candidate would be profoundly irresponsible. So I won't do it. That you want me to only serves to indicate the depth and breadth of your stupidity.

You say, "I stood up and fought against Richard Nixon's war in Vietnam." Nixon's war? Did it start after John Kennedy put U.S. combat troops there, and after Lyndon Johnson increased the number to 500,000?

It sure did start before Nixon took office, you phenomenal jerk. I should know, because I shipped out to Vietnam two months before Nixon took office. My antiwar activities were born from my experiences in Vietnam, and it was Nixon that was waging the war when I came home – and so it was Nixon's war that I fought, and fought against. But you can't be expected to understand such matters because you're a little crybaby pussy who wears bowties and has a hairlip. Check out the record and shut the fuck up.

The easily distressed abortion rights groups were distressed when you said that your faith teaches you what elementary biology teaches everyone: life begins at conception. But you say personhood does not. Fine. When does it? What are its defining attributes? Does, say, an elderly person with dementia have it, and hence a right to life?

Yes, an elderly person with dementia does have a right to life you goddamn sadist. Life does begin at conception. Here's a fun fact for you: most successfully fertilized embryos die long before a woman (god willing) becomes pregnant - are they entitled to the same legal protections as the ones that make it out alive? Not practical. Abortion is a touchy issue, to be sure, but here is one thing that we can all agree on: once someone is born, they're a person. Jackass.

You oppose, on federalism grounds, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. You say marriage law is traditionally a state responsibility. But so was abortion law for the Republic's first 197 years, until 1973. What is the difference?

What's the difference between getting married and having an abortion? Jesus. I think someone else should explain that to you. I'm running for President right now.

When the Pope said Catholic legislators have a duty to oppose gay marriage, you said he had "crossed the line" because "it is important not to have the Church instructing politicians." Have you felt that way even when the Church has instructed politicians take liberal positions regarding economic justice, race and other matters?

Yes. I have felt that way.

Your platform says, "The price of gas is at an all-time high." But it isn't as measured in constant (inflation-adjusted) dollars, or as a portion of Americans' purchasing power. Do you have some other way of justifying the platform's claim?

I justify it by noting, correctly, that the price is high. It's higher than it has ever been. You know what? I'm beginning to think that you're just a right-wing attack dog who isn't really interested in anything I say, but are asking questions that you don't really want answered. Instead, you want to make snarky little jabs (retarded though they may be). Well, bite me. You're a hack and a fraud. This interview is over.