Tom Friedman has a column today in which he suggests that what the Lebanese need to do in response to the recent bombing attack on their Prime Minister is to trade "Hama rules" for "Baghdad rules". By which he means elections. But considering how much more frequent bombing attacks have been in Baghdad lately than in Beirut, it seems to me that someone in Beirut has adopted Baghdad rules -- the rules of the real Baghdad, not Friedman's shining Baghdad of the mind. And that's the problem.
(He also says that it's Syria that's playing by Hama rules, but the Lebanese need to make the trade anyway. Why let coherent thought get in the way of a bad mixed metaphor?)