NYT columnist Thomas L. Friedman dumps on the Bush administration and -- surprisingly -- holds up Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as an example.

It does contain this one stunningly dumb statement:

Europe, for its part, has gone so crazy over the Bush administration that the normally thoughtful Guardian newspaper completely lost its mind last week and published a column that openly hoped for the assassination of President Bush, saying: "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. - where are you now that we need you?" (The writer apologized later.)

I repeat: It was a joke.

That gaffe aside (made, no doubt, to buttress an already strong argument), Friedman's three main points were:

1. A different approach to the world from that of the current Bush administration.

2. A decent Iraqi election

3. The success of Sharon's plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip (but not, if you'll notice, from the West Bank).

I am no Sharon fan, but I am impressed. Mr. Sharon's willingness to look his own ideology and his own political base in the eye, conclude that pandering to both of them is no longer in his country's national interest, and then risk his life and political career to change course is an example of leadership you just don't see much of any more in democracies.

I wonder what Karl Rove thinks of it?