And having a day pass, leads me to appreciate the substance more.

It also leads me to note that I was the only one of the four witnesses that actually said anything substantive about the future global security environment, the default position of Houley being more, more, more (and worldwide) in terms of requirements (while he implicitly admitted no strong case for higher-end scenarios) and Thompson falling back on the classics of "the future is unknowable" and therefore we must plan for all possibilities. O'Rourke, as is his manner, was silent on the subject.

Because I wasn't there for the beginning, I missed hearing Chairman Taylor's opening statement regarding the purpose of the hearing. On the basis of that description, I think I did the best on actually setting the stage for future discussions on force structure and acquisition than the others, because they primarily proceeded straight to those questions (buy more this, reform that, etc.).

Having missed the opening, I felt more the duck out of water, feeling like I was the only one talking the future and serious strategy. But looking back now, I feel like I did as I was asked.

And yeah, that makes me feel better on it, especially when I used that approach to do something nobody ever seems to do at those hearings: challenge the weak force structure rationale of submarines as being primarily intell gathering platforms (and yes, with roughly 15 years of top-secret or better clearance, I know the inside story well enough to call Mr. Thompson's secrecy bluff, although I did find his sigh-heavy condescension on the subject to be most amusing).

In the end, as I read my weekend column (adapted from my testimony and now up on Scripps for distro), I am quite pleased with the message I delivered and would gladly do so again.