So as you've probably heard, The Times rejected my editorial on Iraq, a week after publishing Barack's. I'm sure you expect this to trigger my pulsing, white-hot rage and to throw out words like "biased", "unethical" and "wouldn't use their paper to wipe my ass if all the toilet paper in the world mysteriously disappeared."

But instead I will calmly lay out the argument I tried to make for the Times:

Barack is wrong. If we leave Iraq, America will die. It will be your fault for electing him. Once we die, God -- who is American -- will send you to hell for electing him.

That was just the headline of my editorial. Other salient points that I brought up:

• Withdrawal's don't work. Both of my biological sons and one of my daughters were conceived this way. (We don't call them mistakes. Rather "happy accidents".)
• The quality of life in Iraq is higher than in the States. Remember those images of kids playing soccer in the streets with battles nearby. In the US only the upper class can afford to fuel Dodge Caravans and all those orange slices so these are some pretty well-to-do brats.

• Timelines are also foolish. I remember in history we had to learn timelines for the War of 1812 with dates of battles. I mean wouldn't have been a better use of time to study the causes and effects of international conflicts than memorizing minutiae?
• If you elect Barack, poisonous snakes will come out of our toilets and bite our butts.