T1B

Fuck You!

In his weekly radio address, Bush sought to address these concerns, revealing for the first time that under the revised proposal, people crossing a US border illegally will not only be deported, but never allowed to enter the United States again.

"Under this bill, those caught crossing illegally will be permanently barred from returning to the United States on a work or tourist visa," the president stated.

What the fuck needed to be revised you stupid cocksucker?
The part about actually enforcing the law? So if everyone ignores this fucking shit Bill in Congress just to pass it through chambers you will now "promise" to pay attention and do the fucking job that you've conviently ignored all these years.
Fuck You
I guess i'm supposed to hippity hop down the WMD Trail Liar

He went on to assure Americans the new bill puts border enforcement first.

Get fucked! The hell it does. The pacification of 12+ (Who Fucking Knows)million Illegal Slave Force Residents has always been status quo and as long as everyone's "wheel was greased", the everyday American has been basically told to Fuck Off and pay Up. And so NOW!

Let's get this straight...

When you can't hide anymore because 80+% of American's see all you DC Fucks as worthless, the new neato deal is

"Your Boys still get their Slaves but "least they be registered now".....

You'll promise to do your fucking job right this time.

We inherit Millions (Who knows) of new "Z-Legal" folk to continue to rip off taxpayer's blind with just the brief interuption of returning home, paying some Penalty they'll get back in Food Stamps eventually and coming back only to file Permanant Disability Claims with the SSA and breed.

LISTEN UP YOU STUPID FUCKFACE CLOWN!

THE NEEDS OF THE MANY..... REMEMBER "SPOCK" DUMBFUCK?....

NO FUCKING DEAL DOUCHEBAGS!

both Republicans and Democrats, who argue that granting legal status to an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants will only encourage more people to sneak across the poorly guarded border.

No Way...........

Ya think?

"A friend of my brothers cousin knows that Paco jumped the fence a long time ago back when he was just a cola mule"

"Just ask Paco, today I even heard he's doing some brick type paving work down on Cesar Chavez Blvd."


The whole Amnesty Clan can Fuck off and shove it all up their collective ass's.

Fucking Idiot's

paging truckload of messicans troll..........

hey Y2K, how much do you figure your bidness wouldimprove if you didn't have to compete with raul and pedro?

you'd prolly get the same kind of hourly rate as a fukking lawyer.

trouble is, lawyers already have a very tight strangle hold on who can play in their club. as soon as some lawyer has too lower his rates because javier will do it cheaper, you'll see a change. till then, that fukkin' lawyer wants that firepit in his yard built cheap.

smackaholic wrote:hey Y2K, how much do you figure your bidness wouldimprove if you didn't have to compete with raul and pedro?

you'd prolly get the same kind of hourly rate as a fukking lawyer.

trouble is, lawyers already have a very tight strangle hold on who can play in their club. as soon as some lawyer has too lower his rates because javier will do it cheaper, you'll see a change. till then, that fukkin' lawyer wants that firepit in his yard built cheap.

Of course, law licenses are regulated by the various states, so it's just a tad unlikely that someone who is unable to prove his/her citizenship, or at least his/her right to work lawfully in the U.S., will ever receive a law license.

As for rates being lowered, they already have been even without direct competition from illegals, at least in these parts. Around here, there are lawyers who will do real estate closings for as little as $200. What they don't tell you is that you'll pay more on the back end. They'll filter you through a title company they own, which will charge you considerably more.

Back to the topic at hand, it seems just a little strange to see so many erstwhile members of the "Rack Dubya" contingency on this board abandoning this particular sinking ship. But if I were to post "Dear President Bush," the next words would be "Please resign."

He went on to assure Americans .........

I feel better now.

Looks like Jack Wakey Wakied

smackaholic wrote:paging truckload of messicans troll..........

I was the original Carload of Mexicans troll. Then a certain poster copied it. I also started the Alot troll and the same poster copied my format.

--Crazy times!

Guys, I hate to break this to you, but if I were in charge, I'd probably rather keep the Mexicans and deport most of you. And if the people in Washington knew you all, they probably would too. Hell, I think even Tom Tancredo would make that call.

Y2K wrote: LISTEN UP YOU STUPID FUCKFACE CLOWN!

THE NEEDS OF THE MANY..... REMEMBER "SPOCK" DUMBFUCK?....

Not to hijack the thread, but . . .

If "the needs of the many . . ." is your political mantra, then you shouldn't have a problem with the Bush tax cuts, or at least that portion that primarily benefit the extremely wealthy, being repealed.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Y2K wrote: LISTEN UP YOU STUPID FUCKFACE CLOWN!

THE NEEDS OF THE MANY..... REMEMBER "SPOCK" DUMBFUCK?....

Not to hijack the thread, but . . .

If "the needs of the many . . ." is your political mantra, then you shouldn't have a problem with the Bush tax cuts, or at least that portion that primarily benefit the extremely wealthy, being repealed.

I know you have a hard time with focus, but let's keep this on topic ya fookin tard.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

smackaholic wrote:hey Y2K, how much do you figure your bidness wouldimprove if you didn't have to compete with raul and pedro?

you'd prolly get the same kind of hourly rate as a fukking lawyer.

trouble is, lawyers already have a very tight strangle hold on who can play in their club. as soon as some lawyer has too lower his rates because javier will do it cheaper, you'll see a change. till then, that fukkin' lawyer wants that firepit in his yard built cheap.

Of course, law licenses are regulated by the various states, so it's just a tad unlikely that someone who is unable to prove his/her citizenship, or at least his/her right to work lawfully in the U.S., will ever receive a law license.

but it's just fukking fine if he wants to mow the lawn, I guess.

As for rates being lowered, they already have been even without direct competition from illegals, at least in these parts. Around here, there are lawyers who will do real estate closings for as little as $200. What they don't tell you is that you'll pay more on the back end. They'll filter you through a title company they own, which will charge you considerably more.

you mean a lawyer scamming somebody? noooooooo!!!! say it ain't so! why, why that's not right. surely the rest of the lawyer community would disbar such an individual. *snicker* yeah right. not to start a lawer bashing rant, but, many in your profession deserve the scorn they get. lawyers, along with the rest of the judicial system has a business generating machine the mafia would be proud of. Trouble is, unlike the mafia, it is completely legal.

Why do I have this attitude toward lawyers? About 22 years ago while I was in Navy C school in millington, tn. I got bagged for doing 97 in a 50 on a motorcycle. When I went to court, the court clerk said "where's your lawyer?" what lawyer, I said. You go into that court without a lawyer and you will spend some time in a cell he informed me.

So I rescheduled my appearance and walked across the street to get me a lawyer. There was absolutely no complex legal situation to address in court. It was a simple case of extortion. You pay me 275 bones for 10 minutes of my time or my golfing buddy, judge bob will lock your sorry ass up. You see this day in and day out, especially with DUI cases. Get a good lawyer or suffer the wrath of the law.

Explain to me, terry, how this is any different from Rocco and Vinny collecting every month to make sure you don't accidentally get a busted kneecap.


Back to the topic at hand, it seems just a little strange to see so many erstwhile members of the "Rack Dubya" contingency on this board abandoning this particular sinking ship. But if I were to post "Dear President Bush," the next words would be "Please resign."

nothing strange about it at all. most of us xtra chromosomers have no problem at all calling out the shrub when he fukks up. Wish I could say the same about libs.

Word. The lib mantra seems to be, sure, he may be an asshole, but he's "our" asshole!!! There are a blind GOP'er or three, but in general, they're much more likely to drop the hammer on their own when needed.

OCmike wrote:Word. The lib mantra seems to be, sure, he may be an asshole, but he's "our" asshole!!! There are a blind GOP'er or three, but in general, they're much more likely to drop the hammer on their own when needed.

Nice straw man Mike. How about we just stick to how Chimpy has dry fucked his own supporters repeatedly. You know, like I told you he would 7 years ago.

Criticizing the opposition, whether in advance or otherwise, gets you extremely limited props. Didn't you also say that people would die in the Iraq War? Props on that as well.

As for Dubya, he hasn't dry fucked his supporters, he's totally hooked them up...repeatedly. He's dry fucked the mainstream independent-type Republicans like myself and the conservative base, but has the religious right and ultra rich (read: supporters) absolutely elated.

BSmack wrote:...how Chimpy has dry fucked his own supporters...

They're still waiting for Dubya's SC to repeal Roe vs. Wade.

...any...minute...now...

OCmike wrote:Criticizing the opposition, whether in advance or otherwise, gets you extremely limited props. Didn't you also say that people would die in the Iraq War? Props on that as well.

Back when support for the war was running at 80-90 percent, I said the Iraq war would be a complete and total fucking disaster.

How do you like me now?

As for Dubya, he hasn't dry fucked his supporters, he's totally hooked them up...repeatedly. He's dry fucked the mainstream independent-type Republicans like myself and the conservative base, but has the religious right and ultra rich (read: supporters) absolutely elated.

The religious right? Are you fucking high? Chimpy's left them out to dry repeatedly. About the only agenda item they've gotten has been the stem cell ban. And since Chimpy couldn't get that done without an executive order, they know that's going down the minute someone who believes in evolution hits the White House. The only people he's taken care of are his high end donors.

BSmack wrote:
Back when support for the war was running at 80-90 percent, I said the Iraq war would be a complete and total fucking disaster.

How do you like me now?

*yawn*

As I said, limited props, or if you prefer, partial credit. You said that because you're a contrarian and a Bush hater. Big ups to you for that, bro.

The religious right? Are you fucking high? Chimpy's left them out to dry repeatedly. About the only agenda item they've gotten has been the stem cell ban.

Yeah and how many anti-Roe v. Wade SC Justices? Thanks for playing.

You said that because you're a contrarian and a Bush hater.

I won't speak for BSmack, but I think that a lot of folks were dubious of the approach taken leading up to the Iraq war, not because they hated Bush, but because they loved this country, and hated seeing us making serious mistakes.

The really strange thing is how you're calling Bush a cocksucker these days. So you're calling someone a contrarian because they opposed Bush on Iraq, but then after years of fellating Bush, now you mention he's a cocksucker? Weird, man

Most of the hostility directed toward Bush from the right is due to his stance on the border.
That and the perception that he's dicked around in Iraq.

PSUFAN wrote:

You said that because you're a contrarian and a Bush hater.

I won't speak for BSmack, but I think that a lot of folks were dubious of the approach taken leading up to the Iraq war, not because they hated Bush, but because they loved this country, and hated seeing us making serious mistakes.

I think a lot of the people in this country who didn't want to see us go to war were fearful and apprehensive of what the outcome might be (which is a natural feeling), so they thought it would be better to avoid it altogether. I think that very few people thought we were making a serious mistake (i.e. no evidence of WMDs) as just about everybody on the planet other than Hans Blix though that Saddam had secret stashes that he was defiantly keeping. I know I did.

The really strange thing is how you're calling Bush a cocksucker these days.

Why? I've called Bush out from Day 1 on many issues, including stem cell research and especially his handling of illegal immigrants. It also really ate at me that (when I lived in CA) he basically gave CA a big "fuck you" seemingly just because he didn't carry the state in '00 or '04. Seems pretty petty to me, especially when CA is the US's biggest moneymaker. You think that might merit a dollar or two lobbed its way.

So you're calling someone a contrarian because they opposed Bush on Iraq,

No, I'm calling BSMACK a contrarian because he is one. If it's got GOP attached to it in any way, he's against it 99% of the time. I have little respect for people like that, as anyone with the ability to reason can see that there's plenty to like and dislike on both sides of the aisle.

The reason it's funny that BSmack is calling scoreboard now is that essentially what he said was that after Saddam was gone there would be infighting between the Sunnis and Shia. I mean, WOW, props for that brilliant insight.

but then after years of fellating Bush, now you mention he's a cocksucker? Weird, man

Not sure where you're getting this "cocksucker" reference from, unless you're just generalizing some of my critical posts.

I'm also not sure where you're getting the idea that I fellated Bush for years, as it only happened once and I absolutely hated it. :D Seriously, I didn't even vote for the guy the first time around. I hated Bush and Gore so much as candidates that I voted for Nader.

I supported Bush in the initial phase of the war, but think, like many, that they've completely blown it ever since the "Mission Accomplished" banner fiasco. I won't list off the failures here, as they're too many to number.

I still don't think Bush is a complete cocksucker because of his many failures in Iraq, but were he to have another term in office I think it would be equally difficult because of the mess that's left over there.

Wonder how Iraq would be going if coalition troops secured the borders there first....

What does dumbya have against borders?

No one is going to confuse Bush for an expert in foreign policy, or even well-considered action.

Yet, those assets should have been more in evidence on his team. I think one of his real failings was listening to the wrong folks, and projecting some of his personal friends into slots that they shouldn't have ever been in.

Paul Wolfowitz was a disaster in both of his appointments, for example.

OCmike wrote:No, I'm calling BSMACK a contrarian because he is one. If it's got GOP attached to it in any way, he's against it 99% of the time. I have little respect for people like that, as anyone with the ability to reason can see that there's plenty to like and dislike on both sides of the aisle.

Keep saying that long enough and I'm sure someone other than Big O will believe you.

The reason it's funny that BSmack is calling scoreboard now is that essentially what he said was that after Saddam was gone there would be infighting between the Sunnis and Shia. I mean, WOW, props for that brilliant insight.

Insight that the Bush White House did not have in any way shape or form. Or did you already forget Rummy saying "they will greet us as liberators"?

I also said that our invasion and occupation of Iraq would lead to even more instability in the Middle East (wassup Hamas?), higher oil prices and a complete fucking quagmire of an occupation that would go on for the rest of our lives.

Oh, what was that Chimpy was musing about not so long ago?

Chimpy looking forward to 50 year occupation in Iraq

I think I also said something about our military being unable to support such an occupation without the kind of manpower infusion only a draft could provide.

Looks like Mitt Romney is thinking the same thing.

HELENA, Mont. (AP) Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney says if elected president, he would expand the military by 100-thousand troops.

He says the expansion is needed to aid a U-S Army worn thin by frequent rotations in Iraq. And he says improved benefits may be needed, to get enough people to sign up.

Improved benefits my ass. Who the fuck is he kidding? Never mind that the extra 100k in manpower is about 400,000 men short of what we would actually need to pacify Iraq.

Face it Mike, I called this clusterfuck from the word go. Every single fucking thing I told you would happen has either happened or has been even worse that I predicted. Just deal with it and vote for someone in 08 who won't allow it to continue.

PSUFAN wrote:No one is going to confuse Bush for an expert in foreign policy, or even well-considered action.

Agreed. You need look no further than him referring to Pakistanis as "Pakis", which is the equivalent of him dropping an n-bomb on them in that country.

Yet, those assets should have been more in evidence on his team. I think one of his real failings was listening to the wrong folks, and projecting some of his personal friends into slots that they shouldn't have ever been in.

Bingo. Failures in foreign policy by a President are usually the fault of his advisors. They're the ones who are supposed to be the "experts". Granted, plenty still falls in Bush's lap because he's at least supposed to be the final word on all major decisions, and he's clearly dropped the ball on plenty of occasions.

Paul Wolfowitz was a disaster in both of his appointments, for example.

Mike Brown and his expertise gleaned while running a kennel club(?) and then getting appointed to head FEMA would be another. Presidents are supposed to reward cronies with appointments to ambassadorships to Botswana, not jobs where they're actually required to do something and take action. Sheesh, I thought everyone knew that.

BSmack wrote: Keep saying that long enough and I'm sure someone other than Big O will believe you.

So you're NOT a Dem honk? Who knew?

BSmack wrote:

OCmike wrote:The reason it's funny that BSmack is calling scoreboard now is that essentially what he said was that after Saddam was gone there would be infighting between the Sunnis and Shia. I mean, WOW, props for that brilliant insight.

Insight that the Bush White House did not have in any way shape or form. Or did you already forget Rummy saying "they will greet us as liberators"?

A guy who works in the white house making a politically-tinged statement? No freaking way... And if you want to get technical, everyone except for those in Saddam's elite circle or Republican Guard DID essentially greet us as liberators.

I also said that our invasion and occupation of Iraq would lead to even more instability in the Middle East (wassup Hamas?), higher oil prices and a complete fucking quagmire of an occupation that would go on for the rest of our lives.

Link? Hell, link to ANY of this? I mean, you called some of this stuff correctly, and I'll give you that, but you've taken this to the point where you're taking credit for calling every specific incident up to the car bomb that went off in a market yesterday. Gimme a break, Bri. And you didn't call all of this stuff before we went in. Half of the stuff you claimed was after the insurgency started, at which point calling it a quagmire was hardly a stretch.

Oh, what was that Chimpy was musing about not so long ago?

Chimpy looking forward to 50 year occupation in Iraq

I think I also said something about our military being unable to support such an occupation without the kind of manpower infusion only a draft could provide.

Big deal...I said the same thing, as did many others.

Looks like Mitt Romney is thinking the same thing.

HELENA, Mont. (AP) Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney says if elected president, he would expand the military by 100-thousand troops.

He says the expansion is needed to aid a U-S Army worn thin by frequent rotations in Iraq. And he says improved benefits may be needed, to get enough people to sign up.

Improved benefits my ass. Who the fuck is he kidding? Never mind that the extra 100k in manpower is about 400,000 men short of what we would actually need to pacify Iraq.

Well, the guy IS running for President. You can bet that if he wins and installs a draft it'll be for a hell of a lot more than 100,000 men, but he's not going to come out and say that. BTW, major props to Romney for learning from Kerry's retarded "I have a plan" campaign and actually coming out with a proposed plan, whether it will work or not.

Face it Mike, I called this clusterfuck from the word go. Every single fucking thing I told you would happen has either happened or has been even worse that I predicted. Just deal with it and vote for someone in 08 who won't allow it to continue.

You hear that ripping sound? That's your rotator cuff starting to tear from patting yourself on the back too much. Saying that a war is going to have setbacks, insurgencies and lost battles is calling water wet. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, et al, out front should have told you.

There is one really unfortunate consequence of our actions in Iraq. Al-Qaeda and other folks who would attack us are really seeing how to go about it - where our weaknesses are, what our strengths are - a test case of our conflict model.

I don't think that's really 100% true. Those radicals that survive in Iraq become valued soldiers elsewhere, such as the West Bank currently, and probably Europe in the future. Plenty of them are indeed getting killed, though.

OCmike wrote:And if you want to get technical, everyone except for those in Saddam's elite circle or Republican Guard DID essentially greet us as liberators.

Hmmm....who to believe -- some retard on a messageboard, or my buddy who served in Iraq, who says something quite different from ArmchairMike...


Hmmm.... tough call.

OCmike wrote:So you're NOT a Dem honk? Who knew?

Those with reading comprehension skills. Check out the bong hits for Jesus thread. I just supported John Roberts while slamming Ken Starr. Your head ought to fucking explode trying compress THAT into your dualistic world view.

OCmike wrote:A guy who works in the white house making a politically-tinged statement? No freaking way... And if you want to get technical, everyone except for those in Saddam's elite circle or Republican Guard DID essentially greet us as liberators.

That wasn't a "politically-tinged statement". That was a retarded statement.

BTW: Sadr City started to go south even before Chimpy's ridiculous "Mission Accomplish" speech. Last I checked, Sadr wasn't in Saddam's inner circle.

Link? Hell, link to ANY of this? I mean, you called some of this stuff correctly, and I'll give you that, but you've taken this to the point where you're taking credit for calling every specific incident up to the car bomb that went off in a market yesterday. Gimme a break, Bri. And you didn't call all of this stuff before we went in. Half of the stuff you claimed was after the insurgency started, at which point calling it a quagmire was hardly a stretch.

Yes I did call this before we went in. You were just so busy beating off to your Condi Rice dominatrix pictures that you couldn't be bothered to notice.

Big deal...I said the same thing, as did many others.

So? You just proved that you and stopped clocks can be right at least twice a day.

Well, the guy IS running for President. You can bet that if he wins and installs a draft it'll be for a hell of a lot more than 100,000 men, but he's not going to come out and say that. BTW, major props to Romney for learning from Kerry's retarded "I have a plan" campaign and actually coming out with a proposed plan, whether it will work or not.

So Kerry was retarded for not lying but Romney is OK because he is lying to us?

Who the fuck brainwashed you?

You hear that ripping sound? That's your rotator cuff starting to tear from patting yourself on the back too much. Saying that a war is going to have setbacks, insurgencies and lost battles is calling water wet. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, et al, out front should have told you.

Setbacks are one thing. This is an absolute disaster. Learn the difference.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:Who the fuck is he kidding? Never mind that the extra 100k in manpower is about 400,000 men short of what we would actually need to pacify Iraq.

You still don't fucking get it. We are never going to be able to pacify Iraq. We can help Iraqis pacify Iraq, but if the Iraqis aren't interested then we could put 10 million troops in Iraq and it wouldn't make a goddamn bit of difference except provide more targets.

We already have enough combat power in Iraq to flatten it ten times over. What we don't have in many areas is reliable local cooperation. The areas in which we do have it (most of the country) there is no problem.

Very few will understand what mvscal just said in plain English. Bush is a complete moron and we military types are all labeled as being dumbfucks like the Chimp in charge. BTW, Clinton was a worse CIC for those that think like Brian Smack. Clinton let this happen and the Chimp couldn't lead a fist through a wet paper bag. You have to wonder what your service was all about when you've had to fuck ups as CIC. How do I look at my crewmembers and convince then we are fightighting the right fight?

mvscal was most likely an NCO but he knows the same fucking thing. Prolly more than myself and other real combat officers.

mvscal wrote:You wouldn't know a disaster if it was fucking you up the ass.

That makes him presidential material then.

OCmike wrote:I think that very few people thought we were making a serious mistake (i.e. no evidence of WMDs) as just about everybody on the planet other than Hans Blix though that Saddam had secret stashes that he was defiantly keeping. I know I did.

If by "very few" you mean billions then yes.

Nobody with a brain thought he had WMD's.

Dinsdale wrote:Hmmm....who to believe -- some retard on a messageboard, or my buddy who served in Iraq, who says something quite different from ArmchairMike...


Hmmm.... tough call.

And I've got a buddy who says something quite different from YOUR buddy. Woo hoo! Isn't this fun!

BSmack wrote:
Those with reading comprehension skills. Check out the bong hits for Jesus thread. I just supported John Roberts while slamming Ken Starr. Your head ought to fucking explode trying compress THAT into your dualistic world view.

I said 99%, because I knew you'd predictably pull out one obscure post or two to try to paint yourself as something you're not. Guess what...I don't care if the turnip truck hits a speed bump doing 65...I'm not falling off.

BSmack wrote:BTW: Sadr City started to go south even before Chimpy's ridiculous "Mission Accomplish" speech. Last I checked, Sadr wasn't in Saddam's inner circle.

Got anything to back that up or are you just flailing in an effor to be right at everything again?

BSmack wrote: Yes I did call this before we went in. You were just so busy beating off to your Condi Rice dominatrix pictures that you couldn't be bothered to notice.

You called a few aspects of "this". You did not call the outcome of the war as of June 25th, 2007, which is the retarded assertion you're making here.

BSmack wrote:So Kerry was retarded for not lying but Romney is OK because he is lying to us?

Who the fuck brainwashed you??

Kerry was retarded for acting like he could win just by showing up. Romney's a schmuck for not coming clean, but he who tells the complete truth when running for President finishes behind even Dennis Kucinich.

Setbacks are one thing. This is an absolute disaster. Learn the difference.

Good lord you know amazing little about WWII battle history...

Moving Sale wrote:

OCmike wrote:I think that very few people thought we were making a serious mistake (i.e. no evidence of WMDs) as just about everybody on the planet other than Hans Blix though that Saddam had secret stashes that he was defiantly keeping. I know I did.

If by "very few" you mean billions then yes.

Nobody with a brain thought he had WMD's.

Did I think he had a nuke or facilities capable of enriching uranium? No. But I, along with billions assumed he still had stockpiles of sarin and mustard gas left over from the first gulf war. If you thought differently then you're saying that you believed Tariq Aziz and Saddam Hussein on an issue that they gave their word on. Two kingpins who come from a culture where lying and boasting is considered customary. Okay...

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:Setbacks are one thing. This is an absolute disaster. Learn the difference.

Take your own advice, you fucking dumbshit. You wouldn't know a disaster if it was fucking you up the ass.

Start your education in the Hurtgen Forest.

Comparing a clusterfuck of a battle to a clusterfuck of a war sounds a little like apples and fucking bowling balls.

A certain someone...ahem...might want to look into the crossing of the 36th Infantry Division (Texas national guardsmen) across the Rapido River during the Italian Campaign. Every single member of two regiments was killed or captured after they were ordered to cross in boats, then retreat, then cross on a hastily built bridge, then retreat again. The Germans just sat on the other side of the river, which they had swelled to flood depths by blowing a damn up-river and mowed our boys down. And our beloved US Army brass(read: Mark Clark), just sent our boys right into the meat grinder until they were all gone.

I see mv and Mike are still comparing battles to wars. Keep on Googling "WWII battles". It's really helping.

In the case of the Battle for the Monastery itself, I'd agree. In the case of the Texas National Guard massacre, I completely disagree, as did Congress, who held hearings on the Rapido Crossing.

During the course of two days of hearings, the 30 committee members heard testimony from veterans supporting the statements made in two resolutions: one approved in January 1946 by the members of the 36th Infantry Division Association and the other passed by the Texas Legislature. These resolutions referred to the infamous battle as "one of the most colossal blunders of the Second World War," a "murderous blunder" that "every man connected with this undertaking knew...was doomed to failure" before it took place.

Further, the resolutions charged Lt. Gen. Mark W. Clark, the commander of the Fifth Army, of which the 36th Division was then a part, with a clear disregard for human life and military information. Clark, they alleged, ordered the attack even though he knew it was going to fail with horrendous losses, even after his subordinates had voiced their misgivings and offered alternative suggestions for attacks elsewhere that could, and later did, succeed. The petitioners urged Congress to investigate not just the "Rapido River fiasco," but to take "the necessary steps to correct a military system that will permit an inefficient and inexperienced officer, such as Gen. Mark Clark, in a high command...to prevent future soldiers from being sacrificed wastefully and uselessly." With this testimony and supplemental reports from the War Department and Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson, the committee examined all aspects of the Rapido River disaster.

So which is it? A snafu, disaster, blunder, massacre, or simply a failure? Are there differences between these distinctions?