I hate this.

But I guess I was asking for it when in a comment I facetiously referred to "line by line fisking of long passages by the likes of Paul Krugman," because a friend has sent me his latest piece, titled "Who's Crazy Now?" I can't take on the whole Krugman piece, because my blogger burnout is bad enough already. And I don't want to commit copyright violations. So, I'll just stick with the two final paragraphs -- lifted not greedily from the Times, but gratefully from my friend's email:

But now those harsh critics have been vindicated. And it turns out that many of the administration supporters can't handle the truth. They won't admit that they built a personality cult around a man who has proved almost pathetically unequal to the job. Nor will they admit that opponents of the Iraq war, whom they called traitors for warning that invading Iraq was a mistake, have been proved right. So they have taken refuge in the belief that a vast conspiracy of America-haters in the media is hiding the good news from the public.

Unlike the crazy conspiracy theories of the left — which do exist, but are supported only by a tiny fringe — the crazy conspiracy theories of the right are supported by important people: powerful politicians, television personalities with large audiences. And we can safely predict that these people will never concede that they were wrong. When the Iraq venture comes to a bad end, they won't blame those who led us into the quagmire; they'll claim that it was all the fault of the liberal media, which stabbed our troops in the back.

...[N]ow those harsh [Bush] critics have been vindicated.

Does Krugman like it like that?

And it turns out that many of the administration supporters can't handle the truth.

They won't admit that they built a personality cult around a man who has proved almost pathetically unequal to the job.

Personality cults usually characterize totalitarian, authoritarian, or one-party states, especially those with a strong revolutionary consciousness. The reputation of a single leader, often characterized as the "liberator" or "savior" of the people, elevates that leader to a near-divine level.

A personality cult is also characterized with many images and representations of a leader in public places, including statues, billboards, posters, signs, paintings, and vast murals. In many cases the leader is portrayed in various types of garb (indicating many roles) and in heroic positions. This is meant to emphasize the greatness and wisdom of the leader. The leader's slogans and other quotes cover massive spaces, and books containing the leader's speeches and writings fill up bookstores, libraries, and schools. The level of flattery can reach heights which may appear absurd to outsiders.

"Stalin is our Leader and Teacher, the Greatest Genius of All Times and All Nations, the Sun of Our Planet."

To be fair to Krugman, he has complained about the "personality cult" before, and says it involves politically staged pictures of Bush -- something Krugman called "deeply un-American." (At least Krugman dislikes "un-Americanism.")

Nor will they admit that opponents of the Iraq war, whom they called traitors for warning that invading Iraq was a mistake, have been proved right.

So they have taken refuge in the belief that a vast conspiracy of America-haters in the media is hiding the good news from the public.

Unlike the crazy conspiracy theories of the left — which do exist, but are supported only by a tiny fringe — the crazy conspiracy theories of the right are supported by important people: powerful politicians, television personalities with large audiences.

A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the cause of an event as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance rather than as an overt activity or as natural occurrence.

Also dismissed as a conspiracy theory is the idea that "the liberal media are suppressing the good news from Iraq." Without getting into the merits, the charge involves a very commonplace allegation of media bias. Functionally, it's no different than my complaints that the Philadelphia Inquirer is biased against guns, or that WorldNetDaily is biased against gays. Am I alleging secret conspiracies? Hardly.

But if we assume Krugman is right, then he's uncovered a new conspiracy to see conspiracy theories, and by the standard he applies to others, then he too must be a conspiracy theorist. But I won't make such an allegation, for that would make me part of a conspiracy to spot a conspiracy theorist theorist, and I'm uncomfortable with such a role. I'd hate to be wrong, and I wouldn't want to be right!

And we can safely predict that these people will never concede that they were wrong.

When the Iraq venture comes to a bad end, they won't blame those who led us into the quagmire; they'll claim that it was all the fault of the liberal media, which stabbed our troops in the back.

What would be a good end, though?

If the people behind the war are "deeply un-American," I can only wonder.

(As to Krugman's threshold question -- "Who's crazy now?" -- I think I am. Either that or this whole thing has given me a headache. But either way, it's nothing new.)

UPDATE: Via Glenn Reynolds, here's Captain Ed:

. . .the Americans are winning the media war in Iraq. That's something that the American media has yet to report in any substantive way.

That's obviously another conspiracy theory.