Leavenworth Centurion, retired warrior, fellow rural denizen, and occasional commenter here was so fired up about it that he hit me up for contact information, which, with permission, I provided and his email chat with her staff resulted in a personal call to him from Representative Boyda.

The Centurion's email to me, full of the colorful imagery we routinely fling at each other is below:

John,

We have beaten to quarters, run out our guns, ported our helm, and are bearing up. I intend to rake her by the stern. I have the weather guage.

[Leavenworth Centurion]

My note is below. I will hit send before I go to lunch, your comments are welcome

Dear Doug, [This would be Ms. Boyda's Legislative Director, Doug Matties - a fine fellow in all regards, politics aside]

With your kind permission, I received your email address from a friend, John Donovan.

The Associated Press has quoted Ms. Boyda as saying by way of an explanation for walking out of a committee hearing during testimony by retired General Jack Keane, "there was only so much that you could take."

These are my sentiments exactly. But, what I can no longer take is the political rhetoric coming from the Leadership of the Democrat Party, and now from my own representative. Nancy may be tough, but if she is listening to Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi, she is also profoundly ignorant of what is going on in Iraq at both the tactical and operational level. Like many in the retired military community, have friends, colleagues, and family who have served and are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan . I can sort the wheat from the chaff amongst the press reports, the official military releases and feedback from trusted and knowledgeable sources.

What Jack Keane said is what many of my ilk can also report. There is a profound change in the conduct and nature of the war at the tactical level. The signs are clear and unequivocal. The only way that the insurgents can achieve victory is if our politicians hand it to them on a silver platter. I have no doubt that is exactly what the Democrat Party intends to do. Their political strategy is transparent: profit politically by engineering a defeat for the United States . I am glad to know that Ms. Boyda is now a full participant in that strategy, for it will steel my opposition to her.

Many, including myself, have been sharply critical of the way that this war has been fought over the past five years, and the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the President and the former Secretary of Defense. But, we cannot let their mistakes lead us to an even bigger mistake. Can anyone who advocates surrender (for that is exactly what a withdrawal short of our goals will mean) provide a credible and plausible scenario of the positive consequences of that action. If Ms Boyda can offer one up, she will be the first in her party to do so.

This war can be won, and we must show the political will to do so.

Respectfully,

[Leavenworth Centurion]

He later reported out on his conversation with Nancy, when she called him later that day:

Cordial, but not worth much. She apparently doesn't like criticism from people who appear before her committees. Jack Keane said that schools were open, markets are busy, and that people are going about their daily lives in Bagdhad. This she knows to be a lie. Exactly how she knows this, she did not make clear.

Says that she is just trying to have an honest conversation about what to do in Iraq. I believe that was my complaint - her leadership is doing exactly the opposite, refusing to have an honest conversation. So we talked past each other. Didn't impress me with either being well informed or well spoken on the issue. Cited Article 8 of the Constitution regarding Congress' role in regulating the Army and Navy - seems to think that warfighting is done by regulation and policy.

In her voicemail to me, she basically said "Let's not over-react to partisan political rhetoric."

My point remains - while Leavenworth Centurion and Uncle Pavian may not be in a part of the district electorate that she can really expect to win over as a Democrat, the views they express *are* representative of the chunk of the center of the electorate who gave her the victory last November, and who's sensitivities on the issues of Iraq and the larger GWOT she needs to be mindful of. Her hard-core base, who probably ate the stuff up, aren't the slice of her electorate that may switch back to a Republican candidate, if she's going to give us Daily Kos moments of political theater - whether it was her intention to do so, or no. In human interaction, perspective is reality, and an objective truth is essentially a philosophical construct (i.e., the "if a tree falls in the woods, and no hears it does it make a noise" example).

And the real crux, from the political perspective - is that the truth of the matter as she believes it to be matters not - as it's the appearance of the matter, as expressed in such mainstream media outlets such as the WSJ, WashTimes, and, more damaging for her in the district, the KC Star, not just the blogs. That's what the electorate are going to take away from this event.

I don't know if this will be an item of discussion in the formal meeting, as there are numerous veteran's and general military issues and such on the table, but I'm willing to bet, if her schedule has the time in it - it will at least get discussed off-line by the gaggle of retired senior leaders and at least one mid-level retiree-who-blogs - Jack Keane, as Leavenworth Centurion observes, is widely respected in the military community as a straight-shooter, not a political shill - and deserves a respectful hearing, even if it seemingly doesn't match your pre-conceived notions.

But Uncle Pavian is correct - her handling of this does constitute a test of her ability and political agility. It's interesting having a ring-side seat to the theater, to, um, badly mix metaphors.