Any reporter or U.S. Army officer wanting to serve in Iraq should have to take a test, consisting of one question: “Do you think the shortest distance between two points is a straight line?” If you answer yes, you can’t go to Iraq. You can serve in Japan, Korea or Germany — not Iraq.

It's interesting to me that Yglesias embraces this line, by quoting it, while so much of this commentary about what's happening in Iraq, seems to be based on where we have been successful and where we have failed in Japan, Korea, and Germany.

I think it safe to say that Digby is not particularly impressed, either:

Truly, Tom Friedman is one of those utterly pompous, psuedo-intellectual Woody Allen characters who have nothing to say but who obscurely blather on as if their gibberish has some great significance. And because he’s been anointed as a “great thinker” everybody nods their head in agreement because they are afraid they’re missing something so profound it’s above their heads.

You will forgive me, James, but for my part, I believe we have found in Digby's case, a working definition for "projection".

Mind you, that in any of this, I have no dog hunting. But I am amused by the examples you site, what they will attack, and what historically they have not.

I don't object to his writing style, glib though it may be at times. That's his style and it works for his readers, or most of them, at least the ones who pay him. I don't think he's perfectly objective, but he doesn't pretend to be, either.

I do think he tries to be as honest and objective as he can be on most issues. That doesn't spare him from being wrong, of course. I do take what he says seriously. But I also agree that many attribute an undeserved level of sanctity; his every pronouncement isn't worthy of engraving in stone.

But they're attacking Friedman for being silly (and because he's been a staunch defender of the Iraq War, making him a de facto conservative in their eyes) not for stereotyping. If Pat Buchanan had written a similar list, he'd get a different reception, methinks.

I'm not, by any means, saying that Friedman is a racist. My take on him is expressed in the three paragraphs that close the post.

Joyner agrees with Finkelstein that were Friedman a Conservative, liberals would attack him, but since he's not, they won't.

Then Joyner quotes several Liberals who are attacking Friedman.

Then Joyner, who is presumably not among the Liberals whom Finkelstein and Joyner agree would defend Friedman, proceeds to defend Friedman.

OK. :)

And I like cheese.