As you may know, some National Review writers met with President Bush on Friday morning of last week. You’ve read some about this meeting on NRO, perhaps. I propose to do a little rundown myself. (I’m not going to run him down, mind you! Just do a little rundown.)

In our hour with him, Bush, it seemed to me, was relaxed, articulate, confident, informed, impassioned, and absorbing. They say he is a poor communicator; he has never communicated poorly to me. I must be an unusual listener; I’m certainly in a minority of listeners.

Obviously, the public doesn’t always see him at his best. Could be, he is best one-on-one, or in small groups. But he has gotten himself elected president twice, hasn’t he?

As his political foes know — the smarter and more honest of them — Bush is an impressive “cat” (as he would say — he said it several times during this meeting). But it’s easy to be impressive when you’re president, right? Especially when you’re sitting in the Oval Office (as Bush was when we met him).

Not necessarily. It is not the office that makes Bush, but Bush who makes Bush.

And I will tell you this — something you’ve heard me (and others) say before: The opinion that Bush is less than smart is just about the dumbest opinion in the world. Even if you are the most partisan liberal Democrat: Don’t believe it. Don’t be stupid, as I think Judge Judy said, in her tagline.

Unlike most people, but not unlike Bush, he was running early on Friday morning — Bush was. So he met us 15 minutes prior to our scheduled meeting. (Good thing we were there — I think I made it with four minutes to spare.) I’m going to report what I consider some of the most interesting parts of the meeting. Skip over all this if you like. I’m going to have some more “regular” items below — below this Bush-fest.

‐He said, “I’m fully aware that it is impossible to have an objective history of this administration written at this point in time. I do think it is worthwhile for me, however, to visit with people, to begin to get a proper perspective laid out . . .”

‐He said, “I’m comfortable that I have made principled decisions for eight years — that I was unwilling to sacrifice those principles for the sake of short-term approbation, approval, or whatever you want to call it. It was in this room that a prominent member of my political party said, ‘You must remove troops from Iraq, because it could cost us elections if you don’t.’ And it was in this room that I looked at him and said, ‘You must not understand George W. Bush, because I understand that success in Iraq is necessary for the long-term security of America, and therefore I will make decisions based upon victory in Iraq, not victory in the polls.’”

Do you know who that Republican leader was? Me neither, but it’s fun to think about. Also, Bush talks repeatedly about “victory” in Iraq, and “winning” in Iraq. He does not talk about “ending the war,” as the president-elect and others do. An important distinction. No, a huge difference.

‐Bush said, “So, this is the beginning of a chance just to answer questions and kind of do some jumping jacks for my own book that I’m going to be writing.” Yes, jumping jacks: In talking with journalists, looking back on his presidency, he’s warming up for his book. I think the last time I heard the term “jumping jack” — was when I did one. (Been a while.)

‐In a two-term presidency, “you sow and you reap on a variety of fronts.” You sow in the first term, you reap — or hope to — in the second.

‐“I firmly believe that we’ve advanced the freedom agenda — which is, in essence, what the second inaugural address was — in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon. We were in the process of doing so with a Palestinian state. It hasn’t worked out yet, but the principles for that state, and the notion of a two-state solution with Arab buy-in, are more real today than in 2005.”

I like that bit of Middle East policy lingo: “two-state solution with Arab buy-in.”

‐We are in “an ideological struggle,” a different kind of ideological struggle from the Cold War, “because we face a non-nation state that uses asymmetrical warfare to kill, which makes it hard for a president to sustain the fight.” In this new kind of war, “the battles are infrequent; the damage is often psychological.” And the way “to defeat an enemy ideologically is to offer a better ideology.” The replacement of tyranny with liberty “will be the long-term solution to America’s security.” And Bush is talking about, not just the “tyranny of government,” but “the tyranny of disease, the tyranny of illiteracy.”

‐Chew over this, too: “The real challenge will be for a president to never substitute pragmatism for an idealistic vision, because if you do, you have delayed the capacity to marginalize and ultimately defeat the ideology of the extremists.” You and I know that pragmatism is often necessary and called for, and the president knows it too. (That’s why so many “freedom agenda” people are disappointed in him, particularly given the policies, or non-policies, of the second term.) But I know what he means, and I suspect you do, too.

‐He said that it would be “imperative” for all of us to articulate — “in your own way, obviously” — the idea that “we are in an ideological struggle.” Bush himself is “going to put a policy institute together at Southern Methodist University, precisely to remind people of the long-term struggle and the consequences of allowing hopeless situations to fester.”

‐“I argue vociferously that the Middle East is better off without Saddam Hussein,” Bush said. And people forget about the “environment” of early 2003, when the U.S. and its allies went into Iraq. “The whole world thought there were weapons of mass destruction. Members of both political parties thought there were weapons of mass destruction. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 said, ‘Disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences.’” And you should not “isolate” Iraq, but place it “in the post-9/11 environment,” recognizing “what life was like.”

Bush feels it is important for him to “describe the environment in which we all lived. And that environment just goes away, instantly, almost. It’s like, you know, the 24-hour news cycle means yesterday’s environment is just totally eradicated from people’s minds.

“What was it like to be sitting here and have people say, ‘You have refused to connect the dots, Mr. President’? ‘How come you didn’t know about the phone call from the guy in San Diego to somewhere else?’ So we started connecting the dots.

“But the post-9/11 environment shifted dramatically. So it’s no longer, ‘Why aren’t you connecting the dots?’ it’s, ‘Why are you connecting the dots?’”

Yes. I wish you had heard him say, “What was it like to be sitting here and have people say, ‘You have refused to connect the dots, Mr. President’?” He virtually shouted those words. It gave you a taste of the extraordinarily heavy burden of being president, in these times. (Name of a leftist magazine.)

‐Lately, waxing retrospective, Bush has been talking about the “big moments” of his two terms. “Well, one such moment was being sworn in the second time.” It had been “a tough four years, but I didn’t shy away from what I did during those four years. I didn’t try to sugarcoat my decisions. I defended them. And to have people say, ‘We’re going to give you four more’ was — and to be able to deliver that speech and be sworn in a second time was — a very meaningful moment. It’s hard to describe to you.”

‐One of us NR people mentioned that people used to say, “9/11 changed everything.” Bush interjected, “Changed me.”

‐Why did 9/11 seem to be forgotten quickly? Bush: “I think that the nature of this war is so hard for people to fully grasp. Look, I don’t want to sound like Mr. Blowhard during this whole discussion — but I will.

“I understood the concept that people would say, after a period of time, ‘Well, I’m going to go about my life and not be the person kind of constantly, you know, ducking the next IED that may be planted in my neighborhood.’” People were “horrified” by 9/11, “and there was fantastic national resolution, manifested [for example] in Yankee Stadium when I was throwing out that pitch. It was just — it was an unbelievable moment.

“But over time, because we were effective at protecting the homeland, the fear of an attack began to dissipate. People knew that there was an attack in London and that would raise concerns, but there wasn’t this, you know, on-edge awareness anymore. And frankly, that’s good. It’s hard to risk capital if you’re a small-business guy” and “on edge.” Likewise, it’s hard to “calm your child if you’re on edge.

“And so the job of the government is in some way self-defeating toward keeping the country alert and aware.”

That last sentence takes some figuring out, but you know what he means, and he is, of course, right.

‐Bush said that he has read “a lot of history” during his presidency, and knows that “it’s not unusual” to have criticism of tactics during war. “War shifts. And people are quick to shift their views based upon perceived success.”

I’m reminded of something a friend of mine once said, a remark that I have quoted several times in this column: “People say we’ve had five years of failure in Iraq. It’s more true to say we’ve had five years of learning.” Counterinsurgency, particularly against the likes of al-Qaeda, is no picnic.

‐By the way, the Oval Office — Bush’s Oval Office — is covered with pictures of Lincoln.

‐Another Bush statement: “This is a much different conflict from one where you’re able to point to Adolf Hitler. I used to say, ‘You know, we used to be able to measure success or failure based upon number of ships sunk. The hard fight here is, you measure success or failure based upon routing out very effective, smart people from safe haven, and at the same time advancing liberty.’”

‐Everyone says, Our alliances are in terrible shape, America has a terrible image, George W. has pissed away the good name of the United States. Our alliances, our image, and our name have to be restored. “Restored” is the big buzzword.

Bush: “All I ask is that people analyze our alliances around the world before they come to” any conclusions. “One, it is hard for any president to say that he and his country have had strong relations with Japan, Korea, and China at the same time” — but Bush can say it. “Two, we have changed our relationship with India from one of suspicion to one of partnership, while being able to keep influence in Pakistan. Three, I articulated a two-state solution, at the same time vowing to defend Israel and keeping strong relations with Saudi Arabia and Jordan and Egypt and the U.A.E.”

In Latin America, “we have relations with two key countries that are very strong: one, Mexico; and two, Brazil. The relationship between the United States and Brazil has been one of suspicion at times. Today, it is one of dealing with common interests.

“I’ll never forget my first meeting with Lula in here. I’m a pretty frank guy with these people. [I loved that: “these people.” One of my favorite moments of the interview.] And I said, ‘You know, it’s hard for you to believe, isn’t it, that you’re sitting here talking with a’ — I don’t think I called myself a right-wing fanatic, but . . . I said, ‘I know that you probably think that you and I can’t get along. After all, you are, you know, coming out of the leftist labor movement, bashing America when you could.’ And I said, ‘But you know something? You and I do care about a couple of things: We care about the plight of the downtrodden; we want to defeat ignorance. What I found interesting about you, Mr. President, is you believe in faith-based programs to help lift people’s lives in your country.’

“And it was like, ‘Oh, maybe I can deal with this guy.’ And we have got a very strong relationship. Does that translate to people’s respect for America? In some cases, it does. You know, I don’t follow these opinion polls. But I will tell you, people want to come to America. I will tell you, America is respected. Our values are cherished — because they’re not our values; they’re universal values.”

What should be watched “over these coming decades is the prevalence of moral relativism, which is manifested during my presidency, saying, ‘Bush is imposing his values.’ [He fairly shouts this.] Well, if you believe these are Bush’s values or American values, then you don’t believe in the universality of certain values. And so I firmly believe that our respect is strong in the world. I’d rather be respected than liked. And we are respected, and our values are cherished, and the lines are long to come to America.”

A word about popularity: You can be popular, but “at what price”? “You can get short-term popularity in the Middle East if you want, by blaming all problems on Israel. That’ll make you popular. You can be popular in certain salons of Europe if you say, ‘Okay, we’ll join the International Criminal Court.’ I could have been popular if I’d said, ‘Oh, Kyoto is the way to deal with the environmental problem.’ That would have made me liked. It would have made me wrong, however. And, ultimately, you earn people’s respect by articulating a set of principles and standing by them.

“You know, popularity comes and goes. It just does. It comes and goes for an individual or a nation [sing it, brother]. But principles are enduring.”

‐About Social Security reform, Bush made a point that I often make (if I may say): It wasn’t just Democrats who opposed him; Republicans hung back, timorously. (Or you could call this proper political prudence.) But Bush believes that reform is coming, one way or another: It’s just a matter of time.

Here I will paraphrase Bush, just slightly: “The problem has been that politicians say, ‘Vote for me, I will increase your benefits.’ They never say, ‘Vote for me, I promise to increase the amount of money you put into the system without increasing the benefits.’ Ultimately, if personal savings accounts come into being, the line should be, ‘Vote for me, I will let you put more of your own money into your own account.’”

Bush said, “Now, this is a hard issue, particularly now, for people to grasp, because obviously the stock market is correcting.” And it’s hard for people to understand that, over the long term, “the stock market, bond market, a conservative mix of assets will yield a much greater return” than traditional Social Security.

Then there’s the idea of compound interest: “Once it’s figured out by people, they’ll say, ‘Oh, man, I see what you’re trying to get to.’ But financial illiteracy is still prevalent.”

“I feel strongly about the issue” — the issue of Social Security reform. In recent weeks, people have been asking Bush about regrets. “I regret we didn’t modernize Social Security. I do not regret having laid out a way forward in every State of the Union address I spoke.”

‐Bush talked about the two Supreme Court justices he picked, Roberts and Alito. He said — more like quipped — “My regret is I didn’t get to name a third judge.” At one point, I broke in, “I think that you think that Harriet Miers would have been excellent on the Court” — he said, “Absolutely” — “but that she got a raw deal.”

“Absolutely, no question in my mind. And you think the right thing, because one of the things that I was mindful of when I was interviewing people was, Will the person who’s sitting here today, talking to the president, have the same philosophy 20 years after the president has gone home? And there’s no doubt in my mind that my dear friend, Harriet Miers, would have had the same judicial philosophy 20 years after I’d gone home, and had the intellectual firepower to do the job.

“It is a regret of mine that my dear friend was kind of thrown into the meat grinder of Washington. However, the greatness of Harriet Miers lies in her character. And so after she pulled down her nomination, it was — the White House was sullen because everybody loved Harriet, the person. And she was here comforting everybody the next morning, and said to me, ‘I’m ready to go and help you nominate and get confirmed the next judge, Mr. President.’

“I won’t tell you exactly what I think about it . . .”

“Go ahead.”

“I think it was important to nominate, not only a person who’d be a great judge, but someone who was not a part of the judicial-nominee club. She went to SMU Law School. I recognize it’s not Harvard or Yale — those are great law schools — but you can also have great lawyers come from” other places. (It helps to have gone to Harvard and Yale, as Bush did — in the opposite order — if you want to talk this way.)

Later on, Bush said, “Anyway, it didn’t work out, and I’ll just say my regret is that this really, really good person got chucked out into the — in a way, chucked out there and, man, the lions tore her up.”

‐More Bush: “I just talked about Harriet, but there’s a lot of other good judicial nominees who get nominated, scrutinized, and they just dangle out there. And all this is going to do is cause good people to say, ‘Why do I want to go through this, why do I want to have my family hang out there, why do I want to jeopardize my career, why do I want to put opportunities on hold, if I cannot get a fair hearing and a vote?’ I mean, I think of Miguel Estrada, unbelievably brilliant, and it’s a fabulous American story . . .”

Me: “That’s why he had to be stopped.”

“Yes. Oh, absolutely. But I look at it from his perspective, not theirs. And his perspective is, I want to serve, I want to be in a position to exercise my intellect, I want to help my adopted country . . . And yet he just got hung out there. It was very discouraging, I’m sure, to him and to others who watched the process.”

‐In a discussion of stem-cell research, Bush said, “One of the principles by which I have conducted my presidency is, all life is precious, and a society, a whole society, is one that treats the most vulnerable with respect and care. And I believe the most vulnerable — one of the most vulnerable is the unborn person, unborn child.”

He also felt the need to say, “I fully understand the importance of science.”

On a “culture of life,” he said, “I’ve always said laws change once hearts change. I think there’s [now] a better appreciation of the importance of protecting life; that the debate has somewhat shifted from one of civil rights to one group of people to civil rights to the unborn.

“And I think time has helped the process. I hope that my rhetoric has helped, which is, Good people disagree on this issue. We have made some legislative progress — for example, the broad overturn of partial-birth abortion, and then defended that law in the courts. But ultimately the life issue does require a cultural change, and when it comes to this issue, cultures change when hearts change.”

‐Back to Iraq: “Success in Iraq is really important for a lot of reasons — a lot of reasons. It denies al-Qaeda safe haven, it serves as a bulwark against an Iran that is trying to become more intrusive in the Middle East, it serves as an example to people wondering whether democracy can even work. . . .

“One of the important accomplishments happened yesterday, which was the SOFA [Status of Forces Agreement] — SOFA was ratified by the presidency council. I just got off the phone, by the way, with the leaders of the Iraqi government, congratulating them. I talked to Maliki and Talabani last night, and everybody else except for the speaker, who’s on the hajj, today, just, you know, giving them an attaboy: ‘Good job, it was hard work, you’ve got it done.’

“And the importance of this agreement is, it enshrines a presence and the doctrine of return on success that gives the president, the new president, some latitude. He’ll have two really good commanders that have had a lot of experience in Iraq, David Petraeus and Odierno. They’ll be his advisers on the region. He obviously will have Secretary Gates in place.”

‐On the Samarra bombing (February 2006): “I remember saying, ‘They looked into the abyss and backed off sectarian killings.’”

‐On Stephen Hadley: “I’ve got a fabulous national-security adviser, by the way, in Hadley, and Hadley is in here every morning.”

‐On finding a way of winning in Iraq: “This was all-consuming during this period of time. The issue of Iraq in ’06 — well, the entire presidency, frankly, has been . . . I shouldn’t say ‘all-consuming,’ because we’ve got the capacity to do more than one thing at one time. So it was very consuming.

“And I can’t remember the moment, but I know full well Steve and I said, ‘We’re going to figure out and get to the bottom of this thing . . .’ And you’ve got to understand: With me, I’m thinking victory the whole time. And I fully understood the consequences of defeat — which are easier to explain, by the way, than the consequences of victory. And so we started to assess, and the different options started bubbling up, I guess, toward the end of the summer [’06] . . .

“The way it should work for a president on a decision this big is to make sure everybody has a chance to express themselves. I guess you could try to hastily make a decision of this magnitude and say, ‘This is the way it is.’ On the other hand, when you’re implementing a decision of this magnitude, where people’s lives would be at stake, it is important to give a lot of different stakeholders a chance to express their opinion. The president says, ‘It’s not working, we must assess, and what is it going to take to win?’

“And there were a lot of opinions during this period of time — a lot. Which is good for the president. You really don’t want homogenized decision-making. And opinions ranged from Get out, to Get out of Baghdad, step back, and hope the violence which will occur as a result of the vacuum doesn’t spill out.” Some people said, “Okay, some troops” — and eventually, “as a result of a lot of interagency working,” there were 30,000 additional troops: the surge. “Why? Because that’s what it would take to win, or to achieve the objective.

“It was during this period of time that I recognized — jointly with the secretary, Rumsfeld — that we needed ‘fresh eyes,’ as he said, because in order to explain a new strategy” credibly, you needed “new explainers. And so Gates agreed to serve. And in my discussions with Secretary Gates, I said there was going to be a new commander in Iraq, and I want you to fully assess the field and report back to me on who you recommend [as commander]: and it was Petraeus.”

‐“When the president speaks during a time of war, I’ve found there to be four broad constituencies: One, the people. We just went through how this is a hard war to keep people’s — it’s hard to keep people in the fight. The real challenge was to connect Iraq with our security. The most effective way to do so was to remind them that al-Qaeda had said, ‘This is the front in the War on Terror.’ . . .

“Secondly, the enemy is a constituency — and they must hear that the United States will press all times, all places, to bring them to justice. And I used to say — some said inartfully — therapy is not going to work for these guys. You cannot negotiate. You can marginalize by affecting potential recruits with a more hopeful society, but you can’t negotiate with these people. And if you try to, you will absolutely put your people at risk.

“Thirdly, in this case of Iraq, I was speaking to the Iraqis, and they needed to know that the president of the United States was steadfast in support of them, in support of their desire for democracy, so long as they continued to make the sacrifices and show the courage necessary, because if there was any doubt during this period of time [2006], in particular, a lot of citizens would head to the nearest militia to provide their protection.

“And finally, the president speaks to the military. The rank-and-file of the military want to know, Is this cat making decisions based upon his political hide, or is he making decisions based upon honoring our sacrifice by winning? And the Pentagon is just a very interesting group of very smart and capable people that — where the president has got to be mindful of reaching out to their opinions, and listening closely to what they have to say in regard to conducting war.

“And if the perception is, ‘He doesn’t really care what we say,’ or, ‘He won’t listen to what we say,’ or, ‘He thinks he knows how to conduct war better than we know how to conduct war, the warriors,’ then there will be a significant management problem which could conceivably affect the morale of a volunteer army.”

‐On missile defense: “A big decision in my administration was one I took early on, and that was to abrogate the ABM treaty, so we would have the flexibility to develop a system that would meet the threats of the 21st century. And we have done that. . . . Vladimir Putin said, ‘Oh, this is going to be very difficult’ — ‘this’ being getting out of the ABM treaty. And I said, ‘But Vladimir, in our system I think it’s important to do what you say you’re going to do during a campaign. I promised the American people I would [leave the ABM treaty], so we’d have the flexibility to design a system to deal with onesies and twosies’ — in other words, launches from rogue regimes.

“And we have. And it’s a very important tool for future administrations to know they have at their disposal.”

Friends, think for a second about “onesies and twosies”: Yes, just one nuclear bomb “can ruin your whole day,” as a bumper sticker once said. (Very popular in Ann Arbor and Cambridge, I noticed.)

‐Bush spoke of “a lot of other tools,” too — “tools that we have left. Part of my job has been to make difficult decisions and see that they become implemented, so a president can say, ‘What did that phone call mean? Why did that dirty number call into the United States?’ This is a war against a shadowy network who hide, plot, and plan, and it requires precise intelligence to be able to find them before they attack us. . . . And a missile-defense system is a tool, a part of a series of tools, a president will be able to use to effect the advance of liberty for the sake of peace.”

With that, he said, “All right, thank you, guys” — and, on our way out, we talked about Jeb and the Senate, the future of conservatism, and a few other things.

I have given you a lot of raw material, and maybe it has been too raw. A wide-ranging, free-wheeling conversation is not a polished deal. But George W. Bush has been filtered (or ignored or distorted) enough. And people like me spend enough time commenting and analyzing. I thought you wouldn’t mind some raw jumping around. And if you did — you could have skipped it, as I said at the outset!

‐In the next issue of National Review, I will have a piece on Elliott Carter (in addition to a piece on Bush and alliances, basically). I interviewed Carter on his 100th birthday. (Have I said that Carter is a prominent composer? I guess I haven’t.) Let me give you just one tidbit here:

When Carter was a student at Harvard, he had Gustav Holst for a semester. That is, Holst came over (from England) to guest-teach. And Carter referred to him as “rather aged,” and afflicted with poor eyesight.

Do you know that Holst was 57 when he taught Carter — and that he died two years later? Carter, mind you, described Holst as “rather aged” when he, Carter, was 100. And he, in a sense, was right.

Anyway, the Carter story is a remarkable one. (He was already eight years old when the U.S. entered World War I — but I will leave you to read the piece in the mag . . .)

‐A sign of our times: I saw a headline that said, “Amsterdam to close many brothels, marijuana cafes.” And I said to myself, “Damn.” Now, why would I — a notorious “social conservative” — say that? Because I assumed it was further evidence of Islamicization, or sharia-ization, which I think would be catastrophic for Europe.

It turned out that this story has nothing to do with Holland’s sharia problem. Still, that “Damn” — as I said, a sign of the times.

‐Saw a story about Obama’s chief speechwriter. And I was struck by this passage:

“Favreau is not the first campaign aide whose online presence has proved awkward. Last March, John McCain aide Soren Dayton forwarded an anti-Obama YouTube video to his private Twitter feed linking Obama with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, leading to his suspension from the campaign.”

First, that phrase “Twitter feed” — a beauty! (Are you all atwitter?) But second: “linking Obama with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.” “Linking”! Was he not Wright’s parishioner and “spiritual mentee” for 20 years? “Linking”!

Would it be all right to link Obama with his mother? Is any negative inference-let relating to the president-elect permissible?

‐Was on the phone the other day with a woman representing a Swiss organization. Twice, she said “after Christmas,” then corrected herself to “after the holiday season.” After the second time, she apologized. And I said, “You can say ‘Christmas’ with me whenever you want.” She said, “Oh, all right. I was just told that, to Americans, you have to say ‘holiday season.’”

Well, I suppose that’s prudent. She wouldn’t want to be sued, would she? Because that’s what we in America do: say “holiday season” and sue. (Quick plug: My piece on the verbotenization of “Christmas” can be found in this book.)

‐A quick word on the James Bond movie? I know I’m late, but I saw it the other night. Everyone says what a bore it is, and how lame it is. I suppose that’s true: but I like James Bond so much, I didn’t care. I liked it a lot. It was long (too long, people say): I wish it had been an hour longer.

And yet the anti-American stuff is tiresome. Why do they see fit to include that — obeisance to European audiences? In this movie, Americans aid thugs and murderers so that we can have oil — just as Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, and other thought leaders claim. Great, great. Do you realize how much influence around the world these blockbuster movies have? I mean, one lie reverberates colossally.

One character in this movie says (something like), “We wouldn’t want a Marxist to gain control and share wealth with the people, would we?” Yes: because we all know that’s what Marxists do, right? In places where Marxists are in charge, the people are simply swimming in wealth.

Okay, it’s just a movie. But nothing — certainly nothing that big — is “just a movie,” is it?

‐For years, I’ve thought about having FAQs — and answers to them. One of the most FA of the Qs is, “What can I read to get the truth about Che Guevara?” I receive letters like this every week, and sometimes it seems like every day. Got another one last week from a 9th-grade girl, writing a paper (and a conscientious girl she is — it’s obvious).

On this page, there are links to selected articles about Guevara. I know that Alvaro Vargas-Llosa and Humberto Fontova have written books (I regret that I haven’t yet had the time to read either of them). (I have been reading about Guevara pretty much all my life, however.) And a colleague recently wrote me the following:

I was impressed by a film called Guevara: anatomia de un mito. It was produced by the Instituto de la Memoria Histórica Cubana contra el Totalitarismo, and has English subtitles. It consists of vintage footage of Guevara and interviews with people who knew him, especially men who fought with him against Batista and later left Cuba when they recognized the nature of the Castro regime. Very persuasive.

The website of that institute is here.

Oh, I forgot to say that there has been an uptick in these “What should I read about Guevara?” letters. The reason: the release of the Steven Soderbergh film Che. I first wrote about this movie in 2004! That’s because its publicists promised “an epic about Argentine revolutionary Che Guevara, who fought for the people.” Sure he did: That’s what I was taught too, in good old Ann Arbor Town. Then I turned about 19.

Anyway . . .

‐I like something a fellow critic wrote me the other day — must be an old line, but I had never heard it: “Doctors bury their mistakes. We print ours.”

‐Can you stand a further plug? I haven’t run the below ad in an age. And seeing as it’s shoppin’ season and all . . .

#JAYBOOK#

‐For a year, readers have sent me pictures of their kids with that book, somehow — cute, cute, cute. Want to see the latest? You won’t be sorry — here.

‐Another reader sent me a picture of her two new kittens — named Willow and Piper, after two of the governor’s kids (and ask not which governor I mean): here.

‐Did you hear about the new RSS feed for Impromptus? No? Knock yourself out: here. And an RSS feed, as you know, is not to be confused with a Twitter feed (my new favorite term).

I’ll see you later. And thanks for bearing with this most unusual — and unusually long — Impromptus. (I once heard Professor Mansfield, moderating a panel, say to a speaker who had gone on a bit, “Thank you for those excellent — and extended — remarks.” One of the most barbed things I’ve ever heard in my life.)