I received this lovely e-message today from our beloved president:

Dear Mxxxx, My opponent continues his pattern of confusing contradictions. After voting for the war, after saying my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power was the right decision, he now says it was all a mistake. But asked, does that mean our troops are dying for a mistake? He said, no. You can't have it both ways. He can't say it's a mistake and not a mistake. He can't be for getting rid of Saddam Hussein when things look good, and against it when he's falling in the polls. He can't claim terrorists are pouring across the border into Iraq, yet at the same time try to claim that Iraq is somehow a diversion from the war on terror. The American President must speak clearly, and when he speaks, must mean what he says. This is just one example of how my opponent's weak, vacillating views would make for a more dangerous world. In these final days of the campaign, will you make one more contribution to the Republican National Committee so they can help me and the Republican team get our message to the American people? www.GOP.com/Support Americans are seeing fundamental differences between my opponent and me -- differences I believe are crucial to America's national security. First of all, there's a big difference when it comes to supporting our troops in harm's way. When America puts our troops in combat, I believe they deserve the best training, the best equipment, and the full support of our government. Last week my opponent said our troops deserve better. They certainly deserve better than they got from my opponent and the liberals in Congress when they voted to send them to war, then voted against funding our troops in combat. You may remember my opponent's quote when they asked him about his vote. He said: "Well, I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." During the course of this campaign when they asked him to explain the vote, he said the famous quote and then went on to say he was "proud" of his vote. He said the whole thing was a "complicated" matter. And then he gave yet another explanation of his vote. He said, well, it was a "protest" vote. In the debate last week, he said he had made a mistake in how he talked about that vote. But the mistake wasn't what he said; the mistake was what he did. When we put American troops in harm's way, they certainly deserve better than to have a candidate for President use them as a protest. We will never use our troops as a protest. We will give them everything they need to do the job. They deserve nothing less. Will you stand with us? www.GOP.com/Support During his 20 years as a senator, my opponent has not had many accomplishments. Of the hundreds of bills he has submitted, only five became law - and one of them was ceremonial. But to be fair, he has earned a special distinction in the Congress. The nonpartisan National Journal analyzed his record and named John Kerry the most liberal member of the United States Senate. When the competition includes Ted Kennedy, that's really saying something. It wasn't easy for my opponent to become the single most liberal member of the Senate. He earned that title by voting for higher taxes, and more regulation, and more junk lawsuits, and more government control over your life. And that sets up a real difference in this campaign. My opponent is a tax-and-spend liberal; I am a compassionate conservative. My opponent wants to empower government; I want to use government to empower citizens. My opponent seems to think that all the wisdom is found in Washington, D.C.; I trust the wisdom of the American people. Our differences are also clear on issues of national security. The most important question for voters in this election: Who can lead this war against terror to victory? My opponent has a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of this war against terror, and he has no plan to win in Iraq. The cornerstone of my opponent's plan for Iraq is to convene a summit. I've been to a lot of summits. Since I've been your President, I've been honored to be at summits throughout the world. But I've never been to a meeting that has deposed a tyrant or brought a terrorist to justice. The way to defeat the terrorists is to stay on the offense, attacking them abroad so we do not have to fight them here at home. My opponent last week claimed he can work with our allies, yet, he said those who are standing with us are not a part of a "genuine" coalition. He earlier called them a coalition of the "coerced" and "bribed," and dismissed their sacrifices as "window dressing." You cannot lead by pushing away the allies who are already with us, who are sacrificing along with our soldiers. You can't expect any support for a cause you have called a "mistake," a "grand diversion," or the "wrong war" at the "wrong time." The way to lead this coalition is not to be disdainful or dismissive. The way to lead this coalition to victory is to be clear about our thinking, grateful for their sacrifices, and resolute in our determination to achieve victory. Let me say one last thing about my opponent. Perhaps his most disturbing recent comment was when he said that America has to pass a "global test" before we can use our troops to defend ourselves. He wants our national security decisions subjected to the approval of a foreign government. I will continue to work with our allies. I'll work with the international community. But I will never submit America's national security to a "global test." Decisions about America's national security will be made in the Oval Office, not in foreign capitals. Can we count on you to show your support one last time before this election? www.GOP.com/Support Four years ago, I had the honor of traveling this country with Vice President Cheney and other Republican leaders and we made a pledge. We said if you gave us the chance to serve, we would uphold the honor and the dignity of the offices we sought. With your hard work, with your help, we will do so for four more years. May God bless you, and may God bless our great country. Sincerely,

Well, it was believable until the second paragraph, when I came across the word "vacillating". There's no way Bush knows the meaning of this word; he's just not that smart. This letter then must be as bogus as his entire 4-year term.