Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States?
Absolutely. The solution is simple. Two words - death ray. I'd order miniature death rays for all airports and U.S. locations of importance. No terrorist is going to come fifty feet near anyplace there's a death ray ... which will lead them to either a) give up their nefarious plans, or b) attack areas of lesser-importance, such as Blockbuster Video stores. Who's going to worry when they see the headlines "Blockbuster Gets Blown Up?" No one. In fact, some might actually cheer.

Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?
Absolutely. Terrorists are watching C-SPAN. They're watching CNN. They know what's happening. In school, when kids get a substitute teacher, they do what they can to take advantage of that. The same'll happen if Kerry's elected. Instead of spitballs, there'll be bombs. Terrorists are just big kids at heart.

As president, what would you do, specifically, in addition to or differently to increase the homeland security of the United States than what President Bush is doing?
Other than my 'death ray' idea, I would institute a "guns for bums" program. The homeless are a huge untapped resource. They're on the streets 24/7 - why not put them to work for the American people? Give them guns and a limited police-authority. And all the donuts they can eat.

What criteria would you use to determine when to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq?
The cost. The war in Iraq has cost the U.S. vast amounts of money. Why compound the matter with expensive costs in bringing out soldiers home? I've already had preliminary discussions with Greyhound Bus Lines, and they've expressed interests in sponsoring their return to U.S. soil. Buses would pick them up in Iraq, they'd make their way across the country (with scheduled stops) to the border where special Greyhound boats would take them aboard. They would make their way across the ocean (with scheduled stops) and come back home. The entire trip home would take a total of 263 days from departure to arrival, and only cost the government $52 per soldier!

You just -- you've repeatedly accused President Bush -- not here tonight, but elsewhere before -- of not telling the truth about Iraq, essentially of lying to the American people about Iraq. Give us some examples of what you consider to be his not telling the truth.
Well, his continual "we're winning the war" is an example of lying. Others include "there are weapons of mass destruction" and "the war is over." Oh, and his most recent is "this administration knows what it's doing."

Can you give us specifics, in terms of a scenario, time lines, et cetera, for ending major U.S. military involvement in Iraq?
If I am elected? April 2, 2005. Around noonish. And rather than waste time with moving the military equipment back, we'll simply FED-EX everything back home.

Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another pre-emptive military action?
Pre-emptive military action is always a possibility; to rule it out is to tie the hands of the government. But if it happened again, I'd make sure the enemy in question was well and truly beaten before sending any U.S. soldiers in. I might send robots in first. Or Canadian mercenaries.

What is your position on the whole concept of pre-emptive war?
Wiping out the other guy before he can attack you is a time-honored tradition, going back to Moses inventing the sucker-punch. The one thing to remember, though, is that nature abhors a vacuum. Knock out one enemy and another will pop up to take its place. So my position is - trust nobody.