New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, under immense fire for his column last week when he sought to explain Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad anti-Semitism, comes out with a defense -- sort of.

First, Krugman tries to rewrite history. Last week, Krugman explained that Mahathir's anti-Semitism was Bush's fault. This week Krugman uses a technique taught him by Mel, the cook on "Alice": The best defense is a good offense.

Smear tactics aside, the thrust of the attacks was that because anti-Semitism is evil, anyone who tries to understand why politicians foment anti-Semitism — and looks for ways other than military force to combat the disease — is an apologist for anti-Semitism and is complicit in evil.

Yet that moral punctiliousness is curiously selective. Last year the Bush administration, in return for a military base in Uzbekistan, gave $500 million to a government that, according to the State Department, uses torture "as a routine investigation technique," and whose president has killed opponents with boiling water. The moral clarity police were notably quiet.

Krugman wasn't trying to explain why Mahathir was fomenting anti-Semitism, he was attempting to blame Bush for Mahathir's anti-Semitism, an outrageous, partisan political attack that deserved much of the outrage that it generated.

As others have pointed out, Krugman's explanation for Mahathir's remarks was also flawed. Krugman said the statements were designed to keep the Muslim majority in Malaysia satiated and prevent them from targeting the ethnic Chinese minority -- the ones that actually drive the Malaysian economy.

That explanation rings hollow because Mahathir is stepping down soon from his position of power and really has no reason try to curry public opinion -- it gains him no political advantage. No, Mahathir made those hateful statements because he believes them. The leaders of other Muslim nations applauded him because they believe them.

Krugman claims that we, his critics, have no right to attack him because we were silent when Bush, with the approval of Congress (Krugman always seems to leave that other branch of government out, so focused is his Bush-hatred), gave $500 million to Uzbekistan in return for a military base.

An argument can be made here for some realpolitik, but I won't. I truly despise some of the moves made by United States government over the decades in dealing with brutal dictators and corrupt regimes -- Saudi Arabia and China would be at the top of my list.

But Krugman's friends on the left would prohibit us, at some future date, from taking any action to change that regime, because we once supported it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I was also amused by the fact that Krugman uses the fact that he's Jewish to defend him against any charges of anti-Semitism. Sorry, but that in itself is not a defense.

Krugman also goes back to his lame attack on the Bush Administration for failing to distinguish itself from what Krugman sees as the oppressive, wrong-headed government of Ariel Sharon.

Why won't it give moderate Muslims a better argument against the radicals by opposing Ariel Sharon's settlement policy, when a majority of Israelis think that some settlements should be abandoned, and even Israeli military officers have become bitterly critical of Mr. Sharon?

The answer is that in these cases politics takes priority over the war on terror. Moderate Muslims would have more faith in America's good intentions if there were at least the appearance of a distinction between the U.S. and the Sharon government — but the administration seeks votes from those who think that supporting Israel means supporting whatever Mr. Sharon does.

Of course, the Bush administration does criticize Israel, but Krugman seems to want to continue his on willful ignorance on the subject.

From Sept. 8, 2003:

While putting most of the blame for the breakdown on Palestinian terrorists, Powell also criticized the Israeli bombings even as he called them "self-defense activities."

"To kill one Hamas leader but to wound nine children or 10 children in the course of this, who will grow up to become Hamas leaders or Hamas killers later - they have to consider the long-term consequences," Powell said on ABC.

Condoleezza Rice also joined in the condemnation:

3. POWELL, RICE CRITICIZE ISRAELI ATTACK… Two senior officials of the Bush Administration have criticized Israel’s failed attack on Hamas leadership. Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice both called the strike “counterproductive.” Powell told a Sunday news program that Israel “will have to consider the long term consequences of this policy [of targeted assassinations].” Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told the newspaper Yediot Aharonot on Sunday that the policy would continue and that terrorist leaders are “marked for death.” Powell also made it clear that the Administration opposes the expulsion of Yassir Arafat from the region as a number of members of Sharon’s cabinet --including the Foreign Minister -- are calling for. But he reiterated that the U.S. will not deal with Arafat.

And even from as far back as 2001, though rightfully criticized in National Review:

Israel suffers its worst terrorist act in the current spate of violence — 20 youths killed at a beachfront Tel Aviv disco. Secretary of State Colin Powell urges Israel not to retaliate and continues to criticize Israeli settlements.

Criticism of Israel does occur, it just suits Krugman's argument that it doesn't.

When facts are inconvenient for Krugman, he just ignores them.