First up - a Castle Exclusive! A pic from inside the committee room, right before General Petraeus launched into his testimony...

The Armorer had the interesting experience of having an email chat with a house staffer during the hearing. Nothing said will make it to these pages, but it is a sign of the times that a house staffer and a blogger were chatting via email live during the event. Moving along - we provide Congresswoman Boyda's official statement on General Petraeus' report, as well as her quite-proper finger-wagging at the MoveOn.org hissy-snit.

Congresswoman Boyda displays a touch more class than, say, Congressman Lantos. Tell you what, Mr. Lantos - I will extend you the same courtesy you extended the General - I'll assume if your lips are moving you're lying, since you disagree with me.

BOYDA: AMERICA MUST BE READY TO RESPOND TO GLOBAL THREATS

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congresswoman Nancy Boyda (Kansas Second District) today released the following statement after General David Petraeus's testimony before the U.S. House Armed Services Committee:

"In his testimony today, Gen. Petraeus focused on how to secure Iraq . That is his job, and he has done it well.

"However, the job of Congress is to protect America . We are engaged in a global war on terror, not just a war in Iraq . We must be ready to respond to threats from anywhere in the world: from Iran , Syria , North Korea , and anywhere else. Terrorists now have a foothold in over 60 countries worldwide, and they're growing stronger every day.

"The question of redeployment from Iraq is no longer one of politics or opinion. It is a question of national security, and it is a critical question of our families' safety.

"General Petraeus understands the strain on our military. I will be studying the specifics of his recommendations over the next few days.

"Despite my grave concerns about the war in Iraq , I am indebted to General Petraeus for his informative report. I met General Petraeus several times during his service as Commanding General of Fort Leavenworth, and we visited again when I toured Iraq earlier this year. He has always impressed me as a dedicated commander."

Boyda also released the following statement in response to MoveOn.org's ad attacking General Petraeus's leadership in Iraq :

" America ’s debate on the war in Iraq can and must move forward without personal attacks against our military leaders. General Petraeus is an experienced, distinguished commander, and I strongly disagree with the idea that he is a mouthpiece for the administration. Not only are slurs against him inappropriate, but they distract from the critical question of how to defeat terrorism across the globe."

If, for some reason, you've managed to avoid it thus far - here's a link to the General's prepared remarks and slides.

Dusty, in the comments, offers this rebuttal to Congresswoman Boyda's statement:

Nancy Boyda's message translated:

"First of all, no matter what I hear from these military guys, I know the war is lost in Iraq. That's the position of my party and I agree with it. I just have to be careful how I phrase it so we can inflict maximum damage on the Republican Party without alienating potential voters.

Second, I don't think the United States is capable of fighting a war on multiple fronts, despite what history tells us. Now, that's not to say we shouldn't be fighting somewhere, but Iraq isn't the place, even though al Qaeda says it is and a loss there would, according to the Republicans (and one renegade "Democrat" from Connecticut) have profoundly negative implications for our national security. The "Bush Lied, People Died" meme is effective and we'll use it until we sweep the Republicans from the White House and establish a solid working majority in Congress.

Third, I'm decoupling "national security" from "opinion and politics" to help shut down the debate in our favor. I think it worked for the Republicans and if we Democrats can learn to credibly play the national security card we'll hold power for at least a generation.

Finally, while I may agree with the central tenet of MoveOn.org's message, it would be political suicide for me to say so in this district."

I responded in the comments, but decided to pull it up here, this is a good discussion:

Well, I don't think it's *quite* that simple, Dusty, but certainly there may be elements in there.

Last things first - I disagree completely on how you choose to interpret Boyda's message regarding the MoveOn.org ad.

And, as for "I don't think the United States is capable of fighting a war on multiple fronts, despite what history tells us. " I'd have to say it's a bit more complex than that.

Maintain the current optempo on two fronts? With the size force we have now? With the relative paucity of dollars going into rehabbing worn and procuring new gear? The dollars for that are in the outyear POMs and Congressional talking points, but nothing near like enough is in the current and pending POMs. (POM - Program Objective Memorandum - Pentagon-speak for budgets).

My sense is... no, we can't.

Now, since the Dems don't want to do that anyway, have a war on multiple fronts, they having put forward no real plan with any substance for just what their actual strategic vision is, they have only to point to those things they are pointing at to make that point. It's always easy to carp, and they are carpe'ing the carp.

And the administration doesn't really seem to be interested in countering it, because they're not asking for significant numbers of more troops, nor are they asking for large infusions of cash to gin up the industrial base.

Neither side seems interested in maintaining this optempo.

From where I sit inside the beast, there *are* real concerns about strains on the forces and the sustainability of it at current levels of effort. And based on an email conversation I've had with another blogger, there's a post in there somewhere...