Tom Ricks: Liveblogging the Iraq Hearings

I think we've just had it confirmed at these that the surge was Bush's way of kicking the can down the road and trying to stall until the end of his presidency, so that he can dump the mess he created on his successor.

Tom,
Been with you all day as well as seeing the action on video. Hats off to you for summarizing what was murky at times at best.

These questions--such as the ones Lindsey Graham is now asking--that are meant to provide an opportunity for Petraeus or Crocker to confirm the view of the senator are nauseating.

A belated comment re Warner: I'm going to miss him too. Although I'm a Democrat, I've been proud to have him be one of my senators. How much better off we would be if we actually had more people who take serious things seriously.

I'm not a big Graham fan, but I think he at least is being honest about the costs of this war as opposed to Inhofe or Leiberman.

No hard questions. No revelations. No real talk of getting out of Iraq. No wonder people are leaving.

True, Teresa. Lieberman and Inhofe are, well, I can't find the words.

It's a wonder to me that these senators don't seem to be concerned about making fools of themselves in public--all the bloviating about Crocker's and Petraus's courage, heroism, devotion, intelligence, dedication, etc., etc. Once is enough!

And nobody is really addressing the question of what the point of it all is.

Thank you so much for hanging in there with the reporting. It's greatly appreciated.

it makes me sad that, even with the army in danger, the fate of the nation allegedly at stake, politicians from both sides are still, primarily, playing politics.

what does it take to make these guys get serious? Armed enemy at the Capitol door?

I'm not saying they should all suddenly stop being republicans and democrats, but both sides should be asking, seriously, about how the war is going and what it will take to end it well. The obvious feeling on their part that there is no need to do otherwise, no urgency to the situation that transcends political game playing, is an indication if ever we needed one of how flimsy the tactical and strategic underpinnings for this alleged war to save the western world really is.

In short, if people from both sides of the aisle are not scared enough to ask serious questions to the commander of the battle we really need to ask, why aren't they scared? And if they're not scared, what really does drive this war and why should we bother with it?

So there we have it, thanks to Sen. Graham's questioning: According to Crocker, a failed state of Iraq would leave the door open to Iran. Petraeus says al Queda would fill the void. ????? So, what would that mean? Iran would fight al Queda? Maybe THEY could even find Osama bin Laden.

Here's a second for pgr's comments re your reporting--not just today, but for all the reporting you've done throughout this catastrophe. I've learned a lot from you.

Mr. Ricks
Thanks for your attention to the hearing and your comments--I'm still listening too. [I did find Biddle's--a Petraeus military aide--comments on C-Span alarming for a number of reasons.]
Though the general and the ambassador probably feel like they have better things to do, I feel it is useful because they hear the wide range of opinions out in the land or at least the beltway.
Since "Fiasco" I pay keen attention to what you say and write. Thank you.

That's really too bad because a lot more useful information is coming out today. Also there has been a lot less political posturing. Cornyn embassased himself by suggesting that Gen Petraeus must have run crying to his room when he read the Moveon.org ad. And of course Oklahoma should be ashamed of their buffoon of Senator and God only knows what foolish thing Hillary will say. Still overall a lot to think about.

What was the real premise for the Bush war of choice?

Why has this war gone on for so long?

What is the tremendous war cost to date?

For how much longer is the war effort going to continue?

Why are we fighting in Afghanistan?

How much more money spent?
Where are all the fighters, money and material going to come from?

Will we ever address the campaign 2000 issues of shore up Social Security and pay down the national debt?

Could the price of oil be raised?
Could the delivery of oil be cut back?
Could the delivery of oil be cut off?

Could it be unstated to us, that at some point in the future, some group has decided the Persian Gulf oil is for the eastern hemisphere, only? That would seem to be the only rational explanation that might explain the war's duration.

What does it mean to have so many Bush staff replacements?

Where are the Democrats?

Why did we hear so much from the Republicans about Clinton's private sexual affair?

Campaign 2008 issues?
What will the campaign 2008 issues be?

We waited so long for Betrayus's report and it's status quo. Can't leave. Can't stay. But we'll stay unless someone can get us out. No one is willing to do that. So the case is hopeless.

The idea that they surged and then promote withdrawing is an OIL INDUSTRY TECHNIQUE. They raised the price high then back it off to higher pricing than when the raise took place so people think they're getting a deal. Same here with troops, surge, then we're withdrawing.... only the surge troops... so not really any change.

The only hope we have is soldiers rebelling and not going to Iraq, but they won't do that either because they really enjoy kicking down doors by day and drinking beer at night.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.