Mickey Kaus has got the dirt on New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's attack on President Bush's profits from the sale of the Texas Rangers many moons ago.

A few days after Krugman's column accusing Bush's partners in the Texas Rangers ownership of giving a $10 million gift to then-Gov. Bush, the Times published this letter.

Readers of Krugman's Web site (I'd love to know how little traffic that site generates), were treated to this explanation for Krugman's error.

But as Kaus points out, instead of admitting his error, Krugman gropes for some justification for his previous position.

My favorite observation from Kaus's piece:

2) What's more, Krugman either knows or should know we're not "only hearing about it now" -- he's written that this very same Houston Chronicle article "should be required reading for anyone trying to understand the Bush administration." He apparently didn't read it very carefully himself, however. Nor does he seem to have gone back and reread it, in light of the Bernstein/Betts letter, before assuming, on his Web site, that it didn't say (back in 1998) what it says (that Bush's extra 10 percent was part of the original deal).

What's happening in America's elite schools that reading comprehension could reach such a low level? I'd love to see Krugman's response to his first mistake in the Times, but even more I'd like Krugman to answer Kaus. Failure to address the issues raised by Kaus would lend further credence to the claims that Krugman is nothing more than a left-wing hack. Krugman's articles would fit in better in a publication like The Nation or Mother Jones, rather than the Times, which is supposed to be honest -- even if it, too often, does a poor job of it.