McCain - graduates bottom 1% of class

[RunInRed 16,454]

Seriously?! I did not realize this. John McCain graduated 894/899. That is not a misprint. That's the bottom 1% of his class at the Naval Academy. Any of you top that with your time at AU?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain

[CCTAU 3,336]

Seriously?! I did not realize this. John McCain graduated 894/899. That is not a misprint. That's the bottom 1% of his class at the Naval Academy. Any of you top that with your time at AU?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain

Where did he graduate from? Did he pay his debt to his country? Has he put that degree to good use? Did he have Marxist parents who pushed him into military slavery? The bottom of his school is considered more difficult to achieve than the top of almost any other school.

And yes. I graduated lower than many at AU and still make a better living than most. A high GPA does not guarantee success.

[RunInRed 16,454]

The bottom of his school is considered more difficult to achieve than the top of almost any other school.

In the interest of full disclosure, Obama graduated Magna cum Laude from Harvard Law.

[Tigermike 3,046]

The bottom of his school is considered more difficult to achieve than the top of almost any other school.

In the interest of full disclosure, Obama graduated Magna cum Laude from Harvard Law.

rr, like Chris Matthews felt a tingle down his leg when he posted that.

[CCTAU 3,336]

The bottom of his school is considered more difficult to achieve than the top of almost any other school.

In the interest of full disclosure, Obama graduated Magna cum Laude from Harvard Law.

And had his character shaped by what and whom?

McCain's claim to the white house is not through individual intellectualism, but hard work, perseverance, and an innate ability to survive that which broke many others. Couple that with many years of experience and you get a well rounded individual who is not an empty suit. We do not need another lawyer in the white house.

But keep extolling his intellectual prowess. I'm sure somebody somewhere believes in giving the reins to the company to an inexperienced candidate. (See post on job interview)

[RunInRed 16,454]

I would be willing to bet that many would say that we also don't need another dunce in the White House.

[Justin5 20]

The bottom of his school is considered more difficult to achieve than the top of almost any other school.

In the interest of full disclosure, Obama graduated Magna cum Laude from Harvard Law.

And had his character shaped by what and whom?

McCain's claim to the white house is not through individual intellectualism, but hard work, perseverance, and an innate ability to survive that which broke many others, and marriage to a rich and influential wife, and his abandonment to many of his beliefs from 2000. Couple that with many years of experience and you get a well rounded individual who is not an empty suit. We do not need another lawyer in the white house.

But keep extolling his intellectual prowess. I'm sure somebody somewhere believes in giving the reins to the company to an inexperienced candidate. (See post on job interview)

Fixed that for you.

[CCTAU 3,336]

I would be willing to bet that many would say that we also don't need another dunce in the White House.

You mean a liar like this:

Bush never lied to us about Iraq

The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception.

By James Kirchick

June 16, 2008

Touring Vietnam in 1965, Michigan Gov. George Romney proclaimed American involvement there "morally right and necessary." Two years later, however, Romney -- then seeking the Republican presidential nomination -- not only recanted his support for the war but claimed that he had been hoodwinked.

"When I came back from Vietnam, I had just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get," Romney told a Detroit TV reporter who asked the candidate how he reconciled his shifting views.

Romney (father of Mitt) had visited Vietnam with nine other governors, all of whom denied that they had been duped by their government. With this one remark, his presidential hopes were dashed.

The memory of this gaffe reverberates in the contemporary rhetoric of many Democrats, who, when attacking the Bush administration's case for war against Saddam Hussein, employ essentially the same argument. In 2006, John F. Kerry explained the Senate's 77-23 passage of the Iraq war resolution this way: "We were misled. We were given evidence that was not true." On the campaign trail, Hillary Rodham Clinton dodged blame for her pro-war vote by claiming that "the mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress."

Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of this charge, and the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.

California's War Dead

Profiles of military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus reactions from readers.

Browse by: Age, Cemetery, Country of Birth, High School, Hometown, Number of Children, ...

Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.

In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

Contrast those conclusions with the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, the production of which excluded Republican staffers and which only two GOP senators endorsed. In a news release announcing the report, committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV got in this familiar shot: "Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."

Yet Rockefeller's highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that "top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11." Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.

Four years on from the first Senate Intelligence Committee report, war critics, old and newfangled, still don't get that a lie is an act of deliberate, not unwitting, deception. If Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.

In 2003, top Senate Democrats -- not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others -- sounded just as alarmist. Conveniently, this month's report, titled "Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information," includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees -- who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors -- many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering.

This may sound like ancient history, but it matters. After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats' lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers.

"I no longer believe that it was necessary for us to get involved in South Vietnam to stop communist aggression in Southeast Asia," Romney elaborated in that infamous 1967 interview. That was an intellectually justifiable view then, just as it is intellectually justifiable for erstwhile Iraq war supporters to say -- given the way it's turned out -- that they don't think the effort has been worth it. But predicating such a reversal on the unsubstantiated allegation that one was lied to is cowardly and dishonest.

A journalist who accompanied Romney on his 1965 foray to Vietnam remarked that if the governor had indeed been brainwashed, it was not because of American propaganda but because he had "brought so light a load to the laundromat." Given the similarity between Romney's explanation and the protestations of Democrats 40 years later, one wonders why the news media aren't saying the same thing today.

James Kirchick is an assistant editor of the New Republic.

LINK

[AUJarhead 70]

I believe that at the Naval Academy, it's a badge of honor to finish last in each graduating class. From what I've read, if you're in the bottom 50 or so, you work hard to try to finish last. I can't fault the guy for graduating from the USNA. It's like what you call the guy who finishes last at Medical School.... Doctor.

[Justin5 20]

I would be willing to bet that many would say that we also don't need another dunce in the White House.

You mean a liar like this:

Bush never lied to us about Iraq

The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception.

By James Kirchick

June 16, 2008

Touring Vietnam in 1965, Michigan Gov. George Romney proclaimed American.......

James Kirchick is an assistant editor of the New Republic.

LINK

I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that article came from the New Republic.

[CCTAU 3,336]

I would be willing to bet that many would say that we also don't need another dunce in the White House.

You mean a liar like this:

Bush never lied to us about Iraq

The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception.

By James Kirchick

June 16, 2008

Touring Vietnam in 1965, Michigan Gov. George Romney proclaimed American.......

James Kirchick is an assistant editor of the New Republic.

LINK

I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that article came from the New Republic.

Actually if you weren't such a dolt, you would see that it was published in the LA Times, a huge conservative paper? NO! Why would the uber librul LA Times post blasphemy such as this?

I knew one of you would bite.

[AUBURNJAC 53]

For the sake of this post:

OBAMA= THE ANTI-CHRIST!

[Justin5 20]

I would be willing to bet that many would say that we also don't need another dunce in the White House.

You mean a liar like this:

Bush never lied to us about Iraq

The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception.

By James Kirchick

June 16, 2008

Touring Vietnam in 1965, Michigan Gov. George Romney proclaimed American.......

James Kirchick is an assistant editor of the New Republic.

LINK

I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that article came from the New Republic.

Actually if you weren't such a dolt, you would see that it was published in the LA Times, a huge conservative paper? NO! Why would the uber librul LA Times post blasphemy such as this?

I knew one of you would bite.

Again with the name calling. Someone wasn't loved, was he. Its ok. Let it all out.

Yes, I misspoke, it was from an editor of the New Republic, written in the opinion section. You could still say it CAME from the New Republic, but whatever; you got me, congrats.

Side note, have you ever posted a thought or question and not just an article?

[Tigermike 3,046]

I would be willing to bet that many would say that we also don't need another dunce in the White House.

You mean a liar like this:

Bush never lied to us about Iraq

The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception.

By James Kirchick

June 16, 2008

Touring Vietnam in 1965, Michigan Gov. George Romney proclaimed American.......

James Kirchick is an assistant editor of the New Republic.

LINK

I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that article came from the New Republic.

Actually if you weren't such a dolt, you would see that it was published in the LA Times, a huge conservative paper? NO! Why would the uber librul LA Times post blasphemy such as this?

I knew one of you would bite.

Again with the name calling. Someone wasn't loved, was he. Its ok. Let it all out.

Yes, I misspoke, it was from an editor of the New Republic, written in the opinion section. You could still say it CAME from the New Republic, but whatever; you got me, congrats.

Side note, have you ever posted a thought or question and not just an article?

Have you ever commented on an article instead of attacking and demeaning the author, the site it came from or the person who posted it?

[arnaldoabru 11]

I heard there is going to be a group out similar to the "Swift Boaters" about McCains time as a POW.

It's called Hanoi Hiltoners for Truth.

Some of the alligations are that McCain would steal their millipids and mill worms by baiting his cell.

He would get extra rice by doing jail house type art of Ho Chi Minh and giving it to the gaurds.

And all he talked about was that his favorite movie was "Barbarella"

Those making these alligations, actually never were in a POW camp with McCain.Some were POW'S in other camps,some were POW's in WW II, and some spent some time in the brig at Fort Bragg. Some just have stayed in a Hilton.

[MDM4AU 336]

So to clarify, graduating near last in your class from The Naval Academy = Dunce.

Got it.

[Tigermike 3,046]

So to clarify, graduating near last in your class from The Naval Academy = Dunce.

Got it.

Which is a typical lib dim opinion of the military. What was it the French guy John Kerry said about people in the military in Iraq?

[BZ770 2]

Even if you are the last place graduate from your class at Auburn, you are still an Auburn Alumna or Alumnus. Most wish they would have done better, but there are lots of people that don't even have a degree.

[RunInRed 16,454]

So let's say you have a business. And you are hiring an Auburn grad. Do you even interview the bottom 1% of the class? I doubt it. And rightly so.

[Tigermike 3,046]

So let's say you have a business. And you are hiring an Auburn grad. Do you even interview the bottom 1% of the class? I doubt it. And rightly so.

That would depend, are they in the bottom 1% because they are part of this group?

[autiger4life 3]

Ruin, I have a buddy at the naval academy, and if you graduate at all that is much better than graduating middle to high anywhere else. I also have a buddy at Notre Dame who is towards the front and he would agree. Graduation place doesn't mean anything, especially there.

If Obama had graduated at the bottom, would you think he was an idiot?

[RunInRed 16,454]

Ruin, I have a body at the naval academy, and if you graduate at all that is much better than graduating middle to high anywhere else. I also have a buddy at Notre Dame who is towards the front and he would agree. Graduation place doesn't mean anything, especially there.

Do you realize how stupid that argument sounds? We're not talking about middle of the pack...900 people in the class, 99% graduate ranked higher. I mean come on folks, the excuses for McCain here are getting a tad ridiculous.

[autiger4life 3]

Do you realize how stupid that argument sounds? We're not talking about middle of the pack...900 people in the class, 99% graduate ranked higher. I mean come on folks, the excuses for McCain here are getting a tad ridiculous.

First of all, I don't even like McCain, so I'm not making excuses for him. But if I were hiring someone, I would take bottom 1% from the naval academy before I would take top 5% from Auburn. Easily.

If Obama had graduated near the bottom at Harvard, would you think that it would be a valid argument to call him a dunce?

[RunInRed 16,454]

Do you realize how stupid that argument sounds? We're not talking about middle of the pack...900 people in the class, 99% graduate ranked higher. I mean come on folks, the excuses for McCain here are getting a tad ridiculous.

First of all, I don't even like McCain, so I'm not making excuses for him. But if I were hiring someone, I would take bottom 1% from the naval academy before I would take top 5% from Auburn. Easily.

If Obama had graduated near the bottom at Harvard, would you think that it would be a valid argument to call him a dunce?

The naval academy is an honorable school but since when it is a top academic institution? Top Liberal Arts colleges:

1. Williams College (MA)

2. Amherst College (MA)

3. Swarthmore College(PA)

4. Wellesley College(MA)

5. Carleton College(MN)

5. Middlebury College(VT)

7. Pomona College(CA)

7. Bowdoin College(ME)

9. Davidson College(NC)

10. Haverford College(PA)

11. Claremont McKenna College(CA)

11. Wesleyan University(CT)

11. Grinnell College(IA)

11. Vassar College(NY)

15. Harvey Mudd College(CA)

15. Washington and Lee University(VA)

17. Smith College(MA)

17. Hamilton College(NY)

17. Colgate University(NY)

20. United States Naval Academy(MD)

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews....artco_brief.php

[autiger4life 3]

The naval academy is an honorable school but since when it is a top academic institution? Top Liberal Arts colleges:

The other schools students just worry about school and any extra activities that they decide to take on. At the naval academy, academics is just one of the extremely difficult tasks students must under take. For a student to be able to do all of that and graduate, I put that a little higher than the a ranking that can only measure numbers.