In a letter to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) expressed frustration at reports that Obama intends to put the Democratic bills on the table for discussion at the Feb. 25 summit.

“If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate,” Boehner and Cantor wrote.

Obama proposed the half-day summit on national television Sunday, but in their letter, the two GOP leaders offer their suspicion that the president is not serious about opening a bipartisan negotiation on health care.

” ‘Bipartisanship’ is not writing proposals of your own behind closed doors, then unveiling them and demanding Republican support,” Boehner and Cantor wrote. “Bipartisan ends require bipartisan means.”

Was there ever any indication that President Obama intended to behave in a bipartisan fashion … after the election, I mean. And does anyone think he intends to give the Republicans the opportunity to share any glory, or worse, call it their health care bill?

It’s a negotiation about nothing.

Anyway, the good news for America is the White House is adamant about sticking its guns on the bills produced by an open, bipartisan process of backroom partisan vote-buying in the House and Senate. The White House Blog:

The President is adamant that we seize this historic moment to pass meaningful health insurance reform legislation. He began this process by inviting Republican and Democratic leaders to the White House on March 5 of last year, and he’s continued to work with both parties in crafting the best possible bill. He’s been very clear about his support for the House and Senate bills because of what they achieve for the American people: putting a stop to insurance company abuses, extending coverage to millions of hardworking Americans, getting control of rising premiums and out-of-pocket costs, and reducing the deficit.

Right. Now all he has to do is convince the GOP, a bunch of Blue Dogs and the American people that those bills do any of that. You know, the bills that the American people can’t stand, that helped elect a Republican to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts.

Rethinking this, maybe it isn’t a show about nothing after all. It’s a funeral, and they can’t quite pry the grieving widow’s fingers off the casket. This thing doesn’t need a producer, director or any writers. It needs an undertaker with a gentle casket-side manner and a couple of fast-moving gravediggers.

Allah at HotAir thinks it’s a bluff, the GOP will play along with Obama’s reality TV politics to avoid appearing petulant.

But even ardent lefties aren’t buying O’s pitch on this one.

AP notes that Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, is vocally opposed to Craig Becker’s appointment, which technically could give Brown a free throw to vote conscience or vote to please whichever aspect of his constituency or the body politic he cares to please. Which actually makes this a more interesting vote, in what it might say about Brownism. You know, the independent truck-driving thing. The truck’s now in DC, BTW.

My own back condition has evolved. Up and about, in physical therapy, headed in to work for the first time today, freedom of movement largely recovered. Speaking of nerve, though, anyone taking offense at mine in that prior post re the late U.S. Rep. John Murtha and his gall can take comfort in the fact that some bizarre aspect of my condition now makes it impossible for me to lie down without burning pain, like molten lead, shooting down my leg. Some nerve. No shifting of position or heavy medication seems to affect it, so no, I’m not sleeping well at night.

Talk about gall. Murtha etal were unsuccessful in that effort, and his party’s figurehead, President Barack Obama, now claims Iraq among his successes … one of the few things he is disinclined to dismiss as a Bush legacy. Plenty of gall to go around. Also ignored in the Washington Post sendoff is the racebaiting during the 2008 presidential election, where Murtha was one of those leading the charge, smearing his own constituents. (The district went in a tight vote for McCain … maybe Murtha was right. Or maybe they just didn’t appreciate the racebaiting. Or maybe they thought difficult times call for an experienced hand on the helm. Maybe they just like war heroes. Maybe all of the above.)

The American Spectator notes that Murtha’s death adds to the Dems’ health care woes. I dunno. I doubt that bill will be down to breakfast again either, though if the GOP gives the president his gratuitous grandstanding opportunity, who knows? Washington Wire reports the GOP sees the district as competitive.

HotAir takes the high road. Which is charitable, given Murtha’s preference for the low one.

Riehl admonishes, “Don’t hate.”  Of course not, it’s a waste of energy. But facts are facts. Ugly facts are ugly facts. And disgraceful facts are disgraceful facts.

Gateway can’t help but mention the troop-bashing.

Mudville is less than charitable.

Surber’s “RIP” damns somewhere short of faint praise. (Surber also looks at the district’s electorate and Murtha’s clever tax-and-spend play from his mountain perch in neighboring West By God Virginia.)

Reynolds is tastefully understated. The “Murtha” search at Instapundit is pretty much the go-to place for Murtha gall issues, though.

NYT: “Obama Plans Tribal Council On Health Care.”

Ha ha, just kidding. The NYT headline actually is funnier than that, calls the president’s reality TV pitch a “Bipartisan Summit.”

WASHINGTON — President Obama said Sunday that he would convene a half-day bipartisan health care session at the White House to be televised live this month, a high-profile gambit that will allow Americans to watch as Democrats and Republicans try to break their political impasse.

Mr. Obama made the announcement in an interview on CBS during the Super Bowl pre-game show, capitalizing on a vast television audience. He set out a plan that would put Republicans on the spot to offer their own ideas on health care and show whether both sides are willing to work together.

“I want to come back and have a large meeting, Republicans and Democrats, to go through systematically all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward,” Mr. Obama said in the interview from the White House Library.

A half day on live TV to undo a half year’s bollixing of what was a bad idea in the first place?  Make that a year, because that’s how long it’s been since the president tossed any pretense of bipartisanship out the window and began behaving as though he had an electoral mandate and solid majorities in the House and Senate …

Right, sorry, forgot … he did. Strange how the worm turns on a favorite sometimes. Maybe the sudden underdog’s hoping for a come-from-behind win. One year in, and he’s already staring down the barrel of a legacy that could make him history’s “WhoDat,” only without the Vince Lombardi trophy. Needs one desperately … especially after that Scott Brown interception and 74-yard touchdown … because his presidency, only a year old, has had a harder time hitting notes and wearing its 60’s mod gear convincingly than Roger Daltrey did last night.

Anyway, Obama’s half-day televised bipartisan makeup session sounds more like a gimmicky setup. Something between a Survivor Tribal Council and a Hail Mary pass. After that back-and-forth with GOP House newbies, he figured out he scores more points with vapid showiness than he does when he actually tries to accomplish something.  

The GOP would be well-advised to dismiss it for what it is and demand that the president approach serious matters seriously, rather than with a quickie reality TV session. Or better, just dismiss it as a gimmick, inform him the clock’s running out on that game already, and let him dangle through the mid-terms. However … 

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said in a statement that he welcomed the bipartisan meeting on health care and called on the president to begin the dialogue “by shelving the current health spending bill.”

“The fact is Senate Republicans held hundreds of town halls and met with their constituents across the country last year on the need for health care reform, outlining ideas for the step-by-step approach that Americans have asked for,” Mr. McConnell said. “And we know there are a number of issues with bipartisan support that we can start with when the 2,700-page bill is put on the shelf.”

When asked by Ms. Couric if he would agree to discard the bill and start over, the president said he would not. The starting point, aides said, would be with the proposals that passed the House and Senate.

That sounds like a waste of time already.

But it sounds like the GOP wants to play and figures they can play it his way and still get him voted off the island. Sounds like they figure Scott Brown is the Immunity Idol. This is definitely going to be must-see TV, with lots of eye-rolling, thinly veiled cheap shots, unconvincing true confessions and maybe some blubbering. I hope Rahm and Axelrod don’t forget the tiki torches. Plus the jungle suspension bridge for the weepy loser to carry his bags across.

Kurtz: White House Press Corps feels bypassed. You know, maybe O should watch more Survivor. Sure, double-crossing scoundrels win sometimes, but it’s a tough game and even the most shameless back-stabbing liars know you gotta keep your tribe thinking you’ve got their best interests at heart.

Sister Toldjah, thinking along similar lines, charitably calls it “theater.” If it’s theater, then I’d call it a highly stylized form of Kookbuki.

Maggie’s Farm: Obama’s Palestinian negotiating tactics. Ouch, that’s hurtful! But after 20 years in the pews at Trinity United, stands to reason he must have picked up something, even if he did miss all of Rev. Wright’s forbidden gnostic sermons.

Protein Wisdom wonders why the heck the GOP would want to play the villian in Obama’s made-for-TV drama. No kidding. Or the stain in his his Oxi Clean infomercial.

Maguire sees Obama trying to arrange a Republican surrender … wait a minute, I thought the Dems were the party of surrender. Maguire has a point. O’s strategy relies on the GOP behaving like the Judean People’s Front crack suicide squad. You know …

And Step One would be showing up when the One has already managed to get himself nailed.

Morrissey at HotAir reckons it’s less sinister, just a photo op where Obama hopes to get himself unnailed … from the cross of non-transparent backroom dealing he made for himself.

Speaking of Roger Daltrey, hate to differ with the Boston Herald’s Jed Gottlieb on The Who, but it was more like The Why? 

I forced my kids to watch it for purposes of cultural instruction, at least until about the third note of “Pinball Wizard” when it became too painfully embarrassing. We clicked over to ESPN for more sports blah blah blah, checked back. The geezers were crawling through their medley … that high-tech lightshow and pyrotechnics actually were impressive, held us for a minute, but only served to make the oldsters look lamer … clicked away again, back, away again, back. It didn’t get any better. Someone please tell the NFL that geriatric hasbeen halftime shows are painful, especially when the 60-somethings insist on dressing retro and are hanging out of their mod gear. At least Paul McCartney a couple of years ago was skinny enough that if you squinted he could almost pass for the teenager he was dressed and behaving like, though with McCartney earplugs have been mandatory since he stopped being a Beatle. Gottlieb declares it a “smart branding move” but unfortunately fails to elaborate. I don’t get it. Please explain if you do. I thought the big target age range is something like 18-to-35. Please, NFL, target them. I’d rather watch rap. Some eye candy with full vocal range, please. Speaking as a near-geezer who fondly remembers these acts from when they were big and has an iPod full of them, Superbowl halftimes are like the Lenin’s Tomb of Rock’n'Roll.

Great minds think alike. Don Surber, who’s even closer to Daltrey’s g-g-g-generation than I am: “The Who Sucked.”

Surber advises lip-syncing. I advise act-sinking. Surber also hurtfully observes that Daltrey patently didn’t get his “hope I die before I get old” wish.  

In other Superbowl business, Powerline and HotAir pick a bone with AP over the Tebow ad. More on the Tebow controversy from HotAir and Gateway. Sorry to say that in my extended state of geezer-like convalescence, I’ve missed the contro and also missed the ad last night. Must have been in the kitchen popping another ice cold muscle relaxant.

Meanwhile, re confident hopes:   

Dove headlong into Richard F. Miller’s In Words and Deeds: Battle Speeches in History over the last couple of days.  And what battle speech isn’t about confident hopes?

“Words and Deeds” takes the form of a textbook or reference, in which capacities I can see it being highly useful, especially to those engaged in leadership or headed that way, and the rest of us who seek to understand the oratorical devices of leadership by which we are all sooner or later targeted. It is an academic read that attacks its subject through categorization and didactic examination, with historic narratives salted in thematically rather than chronologically or within any historic context, where a popular read might create a running narrative or seek out a historic evolution to make many of the same points. Simple reader that I am, I would have enjoyed the latter approach, and it may well be that Miller, from his exhaustive research of hundreds of battle speeches dating back several millenia, could yet pull out a few threads and wind them together into a more popularly accessible book. 

Such a format might allow Miller to more fully exploit the gut knowledge, acquired as a combat embed in Iraq and Afghanistan, that he exhibits  in these sentences:

The environments in which battle speeches take place must therefore be considered, and the most extreme of these is combat. The din, the fear, exhiliaration, and chaos of a batle create distortions that act to foreshorten memory, leaving random recollections with much else blurred. A limited sense of topography further corrupts memory — there are few global perspectives for combatants as their worlds shrink to the few yeards of ground they happen to occupy or traverse. Who said or did what, and when, and to whom, can become rather interpretive, if it is remembered at all.

Even presented unemotionally with the sole purpose of elucidation, those are the words of someone who knows what he is talking about, which is one of the great strengths of this book. Miller’s real-time observations of combat leadership make him highly qualified to discuss it. Which he precedes to do exhaustively, in categories that explore the conventions as well as creative deviations in the full range of military scenarios, from recruitment to pre-invasion, pre-battle, midst-of-battle and post-battle speeches, with numerous sub-categories: unit historical narrative, stakes, threats, retreat, personal example, legacy and farewell to name just a few. 

You’ll find all your favorites referenced, and a lot you never heard of, from Alexander, Scipio and Caesar through Henry V … the historically reconstructed speech before Agincourt as well as Shakespeare’s fancied one, coming full circle with the latter’s application on a real 20th century battlefield … to Napoleon, MacArthur and Eisenhower, with a lot of obscure Civil War officers and modern Marine sergeants and lieutenants worked in as well. Miller’s focus on Josephus (The Jewish War … a classical must-read, drop everything and start now if you haven’t), both talking soldiers into pointless resistance and trying to talk them out of it, was an interesting choice that offered Miller a unique opportunity to present a sort of photo negative of leadership, but I sorely missed the extended soliloquy where, after encouraging the last holdouts at Jotapata first to fight to the death, then convincing the survivors to draw straws and engage in systematic assisted suicide to avoid captivity and/or crucifiction, Josephus curciously ends up with the last long straw and strives to convince his readr as well as the other remaining long straw holder that on second thought, self-inflicted death is pointless under the circumstances and maybe they should throw themselves on the mercy of Vespasian. Whereupon Josephus commits another brief snippet of masterful oratory, addressing the Roman general in showy prophecy as “Caesar!” while also pointing out how useful he, Josephus, could be as an advisor in the ongoing suppression of the Jewish revolt. Vespasian’s ambitions, strategic sensibilities and classical superstititions are tickled, and he doesn’t require much time to mull the suggestion before he says, essentially, “I like this one. Let’s keep him around for now.”  Josephus is one of the more masterful bullshit artists of the ages, and all of us who practice the Bullshit Arts can only look on in wonderment. 

I was also disappointed that one of the briefest and arguably one of the most highly effective battle speeches of all time, Nelson’s unspoken “England Expects Every Man Will Do His Duty” signal to the fleet closing on superior French and Spanish numbers at Trafalgar, gets short shrift as Miller gave preferrence to an extended spoken version expressing similar themes by Capt. Thomas Fremantle to his officers and crew aboard HMS Neptune the same morning, Oct. 21, 1805.

Appreciated greatly some of the subtopics, especially “Defenders’ Speech of Lies,” where commanders deliberately mislead their troops to instill confidence and avoid a rout, and felt this is an especially rich area that could be expanded.  

In the end, Miller’s In Words and Deeds is an impressive work that ought to be taught in military and civilian leadership courses if it isn’t already.  Though by no means daunting or impenetrable even for a layabout tabloid blockhead such as myself, it isn’t light reading, either. It is a handy, well-indexed reference that belongs on the shelf of any even semi-serious military scholar or writer. By way of full disclosure, Miller is a friend of recent acquaintance to whom I owe a lunch.

Then launched into The Confident Hope of a Miracle: The True History of the Spanish Armada. Reader Robert will be glad to know that Neil Hanson gives Garrett Mattingly’s The Armada a nod, calling it “the definitive account of the diplomatic background of the launching of the Armada, though he perhaps made less of the Spanish attempts to create a second front in Scotland or Ireland than their importance merited.”

This is very much narrative history and delightfully exhaustive in its detail, starting with Mary, Queen of Scots, being shortened and events that preceded, surrounded and followed, all your 16th century regi-matrimonial geopolitics and intrigue as well as particulars such as the frightful gaffe when the executioner tried to display her head, which I won’t ruin for you, and the burning of any potential blood-soaked martyrdom relics from Mary’s topping. That and the extended intro to the highly disciplined, grandly ambitious, murderously conniving and somewhat monkish Philip II, plus Elizabeth’s own connivance, dithering and efforts at blame-dodging, is about as far as I’ve gotten. Hoping for more on Walsingham, Elizabeth’s accomplished spymaster, who sounds like he’s worth a history or two all his own. And sure enough, he is …

Her Majesty’s Spymaster: Elizabeth I, Sir Francis Walsingham, and the Birth of Modern Espionage by Stephen Budiansky

Elizabeth’s Spymaster: Francis Walsingham and the Secret War That Saved England by Robert Hutchinson

Sir Francis Walsingham: A Courtier in an Age of Terror by Derek Wilson

In other historical literary business, here’s reader Flyguy re McCullough’s 1776 and my recent post, Coffee Stroll With British Regulars:

Thanks for the info about location of British redoubts. I worked at Tufts in 1985 and have those places still in my minds eye. Later around 2000 I worked on the 3d floor of Bldg 149 in the Charlestown Navy Yard and used those old maps of Bunker Hill to determine that the building sits at the location of a coastal knoll that the Brits used as a jumping off spot for the attack. In subsequent filling in work, the hill was flattened and the water’s edge pushed back 100 yards, but ot is possible to show that the hill was right there on 13th St. (those old maps fit right on googlemaps). I could picture the soldiers in my office fixing bayonets prior to their charge.

Glad to learn I’m not the only one who sees redcoats.

OK, exhausted, gotta go lie down and read more. In confident hope …

(Care to comment? Hit “contact” above to establish that you’re a real human being interested in the topics at hand, and send your preferred screenname and temp password. I’ll set you up. It’s a free speech zone here … right-wing warmongers, moderate fence-sitters, Kumbaya-singing handwringers all welcome … as long as you keep it clean and make an effort to be accurate.)

A SENIOR official at Amnesty International has accused the charity of putting the human rights of Al-Qaeda terror suspects above those of their victims.

Gita Sahgal, head of the gender unit at Amnesty’s international secretariat, believes that collaborating with Moazzam Begg, a former British inmate at Guantanamo Bay, “fundamentally damages” the organisation’s reputation.

In an email sent to Amnesty’s top bosses, she suggests the charity has mistakenly allied itself with Begg and his “jihadi” group, Cageprisoners, out of fear of being branded racist and Islamophobic.

Sahgal describes Begg as “Britain’s most famous supporter of the Taliban”. He has championed the rights of jailed Al-Qaeda members and hate preachers, including Anwar al-Awlaki, the alleged spiritual mentor of the Christmas Day Detroit plane bomber.

Amnesty’s work with Cageprisoners took it to Downing Street last month to demand the closure of Guantanamo Bay. Begg has also embarked on a European tour, hosted by Amnesty, urging countries to offer safe haven to Guantanamo detainees. This is despite concerns about former inmates returning to terrorism.

Sahgal, who has researched religious fundamentalism for 20 years, has decided to go public because she feels Amnesty has ignored her warnings for the past two years about the involvement of Begg in the charity’s Counter Terror With Justice campaign.

“I believe the campaign fundamentally damages Amnesty International’s integrity and, more importantly, constitutes a threat to human rights,” Sahgal wrote in an email to the organisation’s leaders on January 30. “To be appearing on platforms with Britain’s most famous supporter of the Taliban, whom we treat as a human rights defender, is a gross error of judgment.”

Well yes, it is news. When a senior Amnesty International notices and denounces this “rights” organization’s shamefully tacit, when not outright, support for international jihad, that falls into a category that we in the news business call ”Man Bites Dog.” While occasionally taking a whack at terrorist organizations, as Amnesty International astonishingly did re Hezbollah’s targeting of civilians and use of population centers as fighting positions in 2006, AI and similar groups have a long history of indignation over the stubbed toes and missed sleep of detained jihadis while actively ignoring the severed heads and power tool-assisted torture of al Qaeda captives. Like others too numerous to name, these groups instead of actively ignored the fact that there is a war on, and that the illegal enemy combatants with whom we are engaged have been granted more rights and privileges than they are due.

But don’t take my word for it. Try the “Taliban” search at www.amnesty.org and let me know if you find any reports about that terrorist organization’s use of suicide bombs in crowded marketplaces, use of civilian positions to draw fire and create the appearance of NATO war crimes, acid attacks on schoolgirls, assassination of school teachers, that kind of thing. Search ”al Qaeda“  and let me know if you find any expression of concern for any of that organization’s captives or terrorism victims. It could be there. Sorry, I don’t have all day to dig through the denunciations of  duly authorized individuals and organizations that have been doing everything local, international and military law allows* to prevent yet another catastrophic mass casualty attack on a civilian target.

Norm Geras decries onesidedness all around. (I agree with half of what my esteemed e-pal Norm says, most especially the parts that serve my political ends. Ha! Just kidding. I would suggest there are vast quantitative and qualitative gulfs between AQ’s standard operating procedure and extraordinary methods rarely exercised by the United States, as opposed to the legitimate methods regularly exercised, as to render the comparison and implied equivalence absurd.)

JWF is shocked, shocked to learn AI harbors AQ symps.

Yid With A Lid cuts AI no slack and links to NGO Monitor’s AI takedown.

AI fellow traveler’s “terrorist” definition tested at Harry’s Place. Good news … turns out OBL isn’t one after all! Plus some animated discussion.

* At least, they used to. Significant retrenchment lately, with plans to further scale back the war footing and grant civilian privileges and U.S. constitutional rights to foreign war criminals.

(Care to comment? Hit “contact” above to establish that you’re a real human being interested in the topics at hand, and send your preferred screenname and temp password. I’ll set you up. It’s a free speech zone here … right-wing warmongers, moderate fence-sitters, Kumbaya-singing handwringers all welcome … as long as you keep it clean and make an effort to be accurate.)

 

Patrick “Patches” Kennedy is calling somebody else a “joke”?

Does the phrase pot calling the kettle black come to mind? Or how about what the late Edward McCormack said to Patches’ dad, Edward Moore Kennedy, in his first campaign for the U.S. Senate back in 1962: “If your name were Edward Moore, your candidacy would be a joke.”

Patches, if your name were – no, I take that back. Patches, you are a joke, period. You are the runt of the litter of the runt of the litter. And the applejack didn’t fall far from the tree.

Scott Brown should have waited longer to get sworn into office? Hey Patches, your dad got sworn in the day after he was handed the Senate seat.

Timing is everything, but so is delivery. And you need good material. Howie, master of all three, is just getting started with Patches’ comedic instruction.

Boston Herald: Brown fires back at “mean-spirited” Patches. I dunno, not all jibes necessarily deserve a retort. And at last check, “mean-spirited” was a copyrighted Democratic whine.

Legal Insurrection, fresh off the blogglefield where he fought mightily for Scott Brown, announces he’ll now commence mopping up operations vs. Patches. 

So much for President Barack Obama’s influence with just about anybody. Partisan jbes and low blows all over the place. Big Journalism whacks Charles Johnson … slow-moving target … Gawker whacks Fox …

Treacher, having been whacked, is on righteous jihad vs. the United States government, specifically the driver of a Diplomatic Security Service SUV that bowled him over, who reportedly represented our nation in a less than exemplary manner.

via HotAir, more Brits take a dim view of warmalism. You could call it an increase revealed now that the decline is unhidden. Surber thinks all the snow might be behind the cold shoulder that warmalarmism is getting on both sides of the pond.

via Gateway, Palin’s Tea Party speech to be covered for MSNBC by the guy who called her “political slime.” Hey, gotta give MSNBC points for making it clear where they stand.

It’s a mean, mean season. Can’t we all just get along? We’ll go out with an urgent wringing of hands. Glenn Greenwald sings a Kumbayah chorus with a note of bitter indignation, bemoaning calls for illegal enemy combatants to be treated as illegal enemy combatants. Apparently they are innocent until they actually manage to level a building or drop a plane, something like that … and deserving of full constitutional rights no matter what they are doing, or where.

Neil Hanson pretty much had me at “Confident Hope,” and having just knocked out Charles Mann’s 1491, Hanson’s The Confident Hope of a Miracle: The True History of the Spanish Armada beckons. 

1491 first. As previously stated discussed, it is a no-ox-left-ungored history of the New World that is likely to change your view of the ground you stand on. Charles Mann posits that the various historic views of Indians in the pre-Columbian Americas as Noble Savage in a pristine wilderness or environmental purist turned hapless victim in a spoilt Eden are all condescensions that fail to give credit for remarkable human accomplishments or ascribe any responsibility for what happened, or recognize myriad glaringly revealed facts of life in the Americas prior to European domination of the hemisphere.  He stops well short of blaming the victims of history’s greatest upheaval and mass die-off, rather examines minutely the highly nuanced fashion in which it played out, and the conscious choices that various parties made … all against a background of virulent and deadly disease that no means then available could have thwarted. Excellent read.

Minor nagging points … the charlatanous mountebank Ward Churchill gets only a mild corrective admonishment when he could serve, along with enthusiastic 1491 dust-jacket blurbist Howard Zinn, as poster child for some of the politicizations that Mann tromps on generally without specific reference. Meanwhile, Mann’s brief, unquestioning references to human-caused global warming as though it were settled science, so to speak, date the book. He does such a measured, thoughtful, well-researched and utterly devastating job of mythbusting on other fronts that I have to wonder if, post-revelation of decline-hiding and other flies in the warmal ointment, he’d have included the same gratuitous mentions. Dunno … he does live in Amherst, where myths die hard. Anyway, well worth the read.

As for The Confident Hope of a Miracle, what’s not to like about a title like that for a colossal historic debacle, taken from Phillip II’s own regal wishful thinking re his ill-fated amphibious operations vs. Elizabeth’s England. We all know bits and pieces of this epic tale, which is the stuff of persistent legend, though any effort that feels compelled in the 21st century to declare itself ”The True History of” merits a cocked eye in advance of cracking the cover. I’m guessing that subtitle was some editor’s add-on and not the author’s, but who knows, maybe he was going for a retro effect. Meanwhile, here are a few of the blurbs:

“Hanson writes with sweep, confidence and great verve. He re-creates the feel and sounds of 16th century battle . . . The Confident Hope of a Miracle is a driving narrative, filled with keen observation and the occasional debunking.”–Evan Thomas, Washington Post Book World

“Hanson tells the story well, and with a good eye for the telling quotation . . . Naval history . . . is where the book carves out its special place. Hanson prides himself justly, on following the seamen through all the twists and turns. He even follows them ashore afterward, spending much time and research on what happened to them when they washing up in the British Isles. . . The Confident Hope of a Miracle has its place on the shelf of well-written books on the Spanish Armada, one of those subjects that bookstores are nevel lacking in.” –Edward Beasley, The San Diego Union

“Intelligent, persuasive . . . a triumph of diligent research that will undoubtedly be of immense appeal to dedicated students of military history” –Richard Zimler, San Francisco Chronicle

Hmm … dedicated students of military history … sounds he’s talking about the regulars here at Forward Movement. Here’s an Amazon reader’s review:

On the one hand, this book is a meticulous reconstruction of a now almost apocryphal event: the Defeat of the Spanish Aramada. On the other hand, it is a finely told story of suspense and adventure. And finally, it is a superb tale of the days when Spain was the Master of the World, England was hanging on by its fingernails, and wooden ships were not yet the miracles of technology that they later came to be in the days of Nelson.

I love the detail and connections in this book! For example, the author of Don Quixote, Cervantes, was involved in events leading up to the Spanish Armada(s). We learn more about Elizabeth I’s (told from a decidedly UNsympathetic historian’s point of view) and Sir Francis Drake’s (who comes off as a superbly competent though self-interested risen-from-the-common-ranks adventurer) roles. We learn MUch more about Phillip II, King of Spain and effective secular Master of the Western World (until, that is, the defeats of his Armadas).

Sailing in the 1500’s was so much a matter of luck, timing, logistics, weather, and fortitude. New naval technologies and strategies were in their infant states. The Spanish had the popular vote to win. The English had the technology (guns and gunnery) if only they had the food. Poor planning on the Spanish side and supremely fortunate timing on the English side managed to counteract English budget frugalities and supplier shenanigans.

In the end it is a rip-roaring story, all the more enthralling for the details.

OK, I’m in. ”Confident Hope” will be my trade-off read with In Words and Deeds: Battle Speeches in History, combat-embedded historian Richard F. Miller’s academic take on historic waratory. Miller is familiar to regular readers here for his scathing guest posts dismantling President Barack Obama’s Afghan strategy kinda, sorta at war speech and his post-Xmas “At war” effort at partial clarification on that subject. It’s after midnight, so who’s up first … this is going to be tough.

A.M. UPDATE: I went with “In Words and Deeds,” too late to be drawn into a narrative. Had scanned it previously, now diving in. Knocked out Miller’s extensive and informative introduction prior to nodding off, got hooked, and will let “Confident Hope” wait my completion of “Words.” Had lunch with Miller in Boston a few weeks ago, a fascinating character who, retiring after 30 years as an investment banker, embarked on a career as a historian and war correspondent, someone I now count as a friend. Civil War and Harvard buffs will also be interested in another of his,  Harvard’s Civil War: The History of the Twentieth Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, a good work of narrative history I’m partway into that is all the more relevant today in light of contemporary political issues surrounding Ivy League colleges and the military. 

Book fight! Reader Robert reports “Confident Hope” scribbler Neil Hanson has his work cut out for him if he wants to top The Armada by Garrett Mattingly.

Meanwhile, reader Blaine will see your 1491 and raise you 1421: The Year China Discovered America by Gavin Menzies. Blaine remarks Menzies goes out on a limb and Publisher’s Weekly agrees:

A former submarine commander in Britain’s Royal Navy, Menzies must enjoy doing battle. The amateur historian’s lightly footnoted, heavily speculative re-creation of little-known voyages made by Chinese ships in the early 1400s goes far beyond what most experts in and outside of China are willing to assert and will surely set tongues wagging. According to Menzies’s brazen but dull account of the Middle Kingdom’s exploits at sea, Magellan, Dias, da Gama, Cabral and Cook only “discovered” lands the Chinese had already visited, and they sailed with maps drawn from Chinese charts. Menzies alleges that the Chinese not only discovered America, but also established colonies here long before Columbus set out to sea. Because China burned the records of its historic expeditions led by Zheng He, the famed eunuch admiral and the focus of this account, Menzies is forced to defend his argument by compiling a tedious package of circumstantial evidence that ranges from reasonable to ridiculous. While the book does contain some compelling claims-for example, that the Chinese were able to calculate longitude long before Western explorers-drawn from Menzies’s experiences at sea, his overall credibility is undermined by dubious research methods.

Booklist is somewhat more enthused:

Menzies makes the fascinating argument that the Chinese discovered the Americas a full 70 years before Columbus. Not only did the Chinese discover America first, but they also, according to the author, established a number of subsequently lost colonies in the Caribbean. Furthermore, he asserts that the Chinese circumnavigated the globe, desalinated water, and perfected the art of cartography. In fact, he believes that most of the renowned European explorers actually sailed with maps charted by the Chinese. Though most historical records were destroyed during centuries of turmoil in the Far East, he manages to cobble together some feasible evidence supporting his controversial conclusions. Sure to cause a stir among historians, this questionable tale of adventure on the high seas will be hotly debated in academic circles.

While we’re on the subject, I’ll see your Chinese colonists and raise you a couple of boatloads of Vikings:

Vikings : The North Atlantic Saga edited by William Fitzhugh and Elizabeth Ward, National Museum of Natural History

The Viking Discovery of America: The Excavation of a Norse Settlement in L’Anse Aux Meadows, Newfoundland by Helge Ingstad

No show without Punch, here’s the ever controversial Farley Mowat with his tale of “Albans” who beat the Vikings here. The Farfarers: Before the Norse.

Back to the Chinese, here’s When China Ruled the Seas: The Treasure Fleet of the Dragon Throne, 1405-1433 by Natioal Geographic scribbler Louise Levathes, who avoids going out on limbs and gets kinder treatment from the critics than Menzies. Here’s Publisher’s Weekly:

Levathes, a former staff writer for National Geographic , here tells the story of seven epic voyages made by unique junk armadas during the reign of the Chinese emperor Zhu Di. These “treasure ships” under the command of the eunuch admiral Zheng He traded in porcelain, silk, lacquerware and fine-art objects; they sailed from Korea and Japan throughout the Malay archipelago and India to East Africa, and possibly as far away as Australia. Levathes argues that China could have employed its navy–with some 3000 vessels, the largest in history until the present century–to establish a great colonial empire 100 years before the age of European exploration and expansion; instead, the Chinese abruptly dismantled their navy. Levathes describes the political showdown that led to this perverse turn of events, revolving around a clash between the powerful eunuch class and Confucian scholar-officials. Her scholarly study includes a section on the construction of the seagoing junks (the largest had nine masts, was 400 feet long and would have dwarfed Columbus’s ships) and provides a look into court life in the Ming dynasty, particularly the relationship between the emperor, his eunuch and his concubines.

I suppose in fairness as long as we’re fishing around for early explorations of the New World, it isn’t fair to just stick with the Old World at the expense of Other Worlds. You know …

Chariots of the Gods by Erich von Däniken. (A family I knew growing up in Thailand in the 1970s had previously lived in Colombia, where the old man reported having encountered von Däniken in the 1960s. Declared him a crackpot, a view that has since come to be widely held.)

Earth to Crittenden, come in Crittenden.

Out of deep space and into deep time, here’s Ancient Encounters: Kennewick Man and the First Americans by James C. Chatters, which I read and liked, about the evidence for a pre-Indian settlement of North America by a strain of our common Eurasian forebears. Another on that subject, Skull Wars Kennewick Man, Archaeology, And The Battle For Native American Identity by David Hurst Thomas.