The New York Times' Paul "Line 47" Krugman, is going to become my personal whipping boy. For four years, Vice President Dan Quayle's foibles were fodder for humor columnists, talk show hosts and the major media. Krugman shows a similar talent for making an ass of himself, today likening White House spokesman Ari Fleischer to Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

So, what's got Krugman mad this time?

It was Ari Fleischer's use of a press conference on the crisis in the Middle East to shill, once again, for the Bush energy plan.

Let me say for starters that energy policy isn't central to this crisis � and to be fair to Mr. Fleischer, he didn't say that it was (he was responding to a question about oil prices). Even if the United States weren't dependent on imported oil, the Middle East would still be a strategically crucial region, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would still be a world nightmare.

It's statements like this that make me think that Krugman should stick to Ivory Tower academics. He's just not familiar with the real world where most people live. He's also not familiar with that "Twilight Zone" that is Washington, D.C.

Krugman's complaint appears to be that Fleischer was wrong to answer a question from a member of the press and push for the Bush energy policy. Of course, that statement is naive and silly on its face.

The rest of Krugman's statements just show how little grasp he has on the way the world works. Energy policy is central to this crisis. It's not an issue of oil exports from the Palestinian territories or Israel, but from the nearby, oil-rich countries that are angered over not only what Israel is doing, but Israel's very existence. Does Krugman really think that we'd be dancing around Saudi Arabia's exporting of Wahhabism, a radical brand of Islam, if they didn't have oil?

Krugman also makes the dubious statement that: "Even if the United States weren't dependent on imported oil, the Middle East would still be a strategically crucial region."

Who in their right mind actually believes that? The only thing that makes Saudis or Iraqis or Iranians or Omanis wealthy is oil. The only natural resource those nations have is oil. The only thing those countries export is oil. The people in those countries would be as dirt poor as those in sub-Saharan Africa if it weren't' for oil -- and American leaders would care as little about their plight.

You didn't hear American presidents being as concerned about, or the American media devoting air time to, the genocide in Rwanda or the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Why? Because, while what happens there may be tragic and horrible, it doesn't affect Americans. A hike in oil prices affects every American.

But to the extent that oil independence would help � and it would, a bit, by reducing the leverage of Persian Gulf producers � the Bush administration has long since forfeited the moral high ground. It has done so by vigorously opposing any serious efforts at conservation, which would have to be the centerpiece of any real plan to reduce oil imports.

Well, that sounds good, and it's something liberals like Krugman like to scream, but it's not factually true.

You can find the Bush energy plan's conservation suggestions here. [Note: Adobe Acrobat required] The reason why people like Krugman call Bush's plan insincere is because he doesn't focus solely on conservation. If you're trying to lose weight, you can drop some pounds by eating less, but you can lose more faster if you exercise too. To depend solely on conservation is no plan.

There are many ways to make this case; here are two more. Even at its peak, a decade or so after drilling began, oil production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would reduce imports by no more than would a 3-mile-per-gallon increase in fuel efficiency � something easily achievable, were it not for opposition from special interest groups. Indeed, the Kerry-McCain fuel efficiency standards, which the administration opposed, would have saved three times as much oil as ANWR might produce. Or put it this way: Total world oil production is about 75 million barrels per day, of which the United States consumes almost 20; ANWR would produce, at maximum, a bit more than 1 million.

Well, Krugman's got his numbers, those who support drilling in ANWR have their numbers. Truthfully, they're both guesses, because no one's really been allowed to see how many barrels of oil are under that frozen wasteland. Also, a case can be made that further raising the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards will result in more deaths.

Yet a few months ago, Republican activists ran ads with side-by-side photos of Tom Daschle and Saddam Hussein, declaring that both men oppose drilling in ANWR � and Dick Cheney, when asked, stood behind those ads. Administration critics could, with rather more justification, run ads with side-by-side photos of George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein, declaring that both men oppose increased fuel efficiency standards. (Actually, I'm not aware that Iraq's ruler has expressed an opinion on either issue.) Of course, if such ads did run, there would be enormous outrage. After all, turnabout wouldn't be fair play because, well, just because.

While it may be tasteless, both allegations may be true. Fair play isn't really an issue here. Democrats, unlike Krugman, aren't politically suicidal, which is what likening George W. Bush to Saddam Hussein would be for any organization with such a tin ear.

This isn't the first time the Bush administration has engaged in "hitchhiking," using a crisis to promote a pre-existing agenda that has nothing to do with that crisis. A year ago it was trying to promote drilling in the wildlife refuge as the answer to electricity shortages in California � a connection as far-fetched, if you think about it, as the alleged connection between arctic drilling and the war on terror. And the administration has shamelessly exploited Sept. 11 to cover its fiscal tracks, pretending � in flat contradiction of the facts � that the war on terror is the reason those huge projected surpluses have vanished, and that tax cuts have nothing to do with it.

Republicans are often seen by the American public as being for a stronger military. So, when America is attacked it's wrong for Republicans to say: "Vote for us!"? Hitchhiking? Wow, Krugman comes up with this theory and then puts it to good use. He's managed to hitchhike the tragedy in the Middle East to attack the Bush tax cut. Krugman knows hitchhiking!

Needless to say, I don't have the answer to that tragedy. Mr. Bush's speech yesterday gave some reason for hope: at least, for now, he has rejected the advice of sycophants who assure him that tough guys never get caught in quagmires. (Tom DeLay recently declared that if we'd had a leader like Mr. Bush, we would have won the Vietnam War.) But one thing I'm sure of is that this is no time for hitchhiking.

The question is whether Mr. Fleischer and his colleagues understand this. At long last, have they left any sense of decency?

Actually, I think Fleischer and Bush do have a sense of decency. Unfortunately, Krugman doesn't.

Some parting advice for Mr. Krugman, from President Bush's favorite philosopher:

"Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." Matthew 7:1-6