Live Blogging Thread on Petraeus Crocker Testimony Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

12:50 -  Nice shot by Lantos,  "the Administration has sent you here to convince us that victory is imminent.  Well I don't buy it."

1:05 - Ok, I'm waiting for the actual testimony to get rolling here.  It's been 35 minutes.  And still no Petraeus or Crocker

1:08 - Ros-Lehtinen says that she trusts Petraeus's numbers more than anybody else's.  But a number of news outlets beg to differ.  NY Times, AP, Washington Post, McClatchy and even inconsistencies in the Pentagon's own data.

1:23 - Seriously.  Some technical difficulties.  We're an hour in and no one has testified yet.  And one member who I didn't quite catch asked Skelton to kick someone out because they "looked" like they might cause a disturbance

1:34 - According to Petraeus sectarian incidents in Iraq are down in 8 of the last 12 weeks.  But according to the NIE it was 7 out of 9.  Not as promising last 3 weeks and why don't we go back further?  Why do we randomly choose the last 12 weeks?

1:53 - 130,000 troops in mid July 2008.  Is that what the American people voted for in
November of 06?

OK, I'm going below the fold

Comments

[Don Bacon]

Why do we randomly choose the last 12 weeks?

Because the 'fix is in' and the numbers are being manipulated. I don't suppose that it cost THAT much. It was well within the CIA budget.

[Samantha Stickers]

I hope someone asks him, under oath, who wrote the report.

[Penguins In Burma]

It was Rep. Burton who asked Mr. Skelton to remove someone who "looked like" they might be a problem.

[Swashbuckler]

"Why do we randomly choose the last 12 weeks?"

It's not random at all, it's the amount of time the "surge" has been fully in place.

[Dan Q. Public]

//1:53 - 130,000 troops in mid July 2008. Is that what the American people voted for in November of 06?

Apparently it is, because the Democrats we voted for are don't have the political spine to do something that might, gasp, cost them a vote.

[blgphd]

Were we not informed in the past that the army does not have the numbers to sustain the "surge" beyond the summer of 08 without doing damage to our military? Are we therefore planning to bring this many men home because we have to and not because we are somehow successful and the Iraqi's are ready to "stand up".