Extensive use of facts is not really necessary if you're a columnist at the New York Times. Case in point: Paul Krugman.

Krugman, a former adviser to disgraced energy giant Enron, starts out with an interesting claim.

[T]here's a deep mystery surrounding Dick Cheney's energy task force, but it's not about what happened back in 2001. Clearly, energy industry executives dictated the content of a report that served their interests.

Interesting, so, companies like Enron just dictated policy and the Bush administration did just what they wanted. (Not exactly.)

That's small potatoes. What is really interesting is this:

What Mr. Cheney is defending, in other words, is a doctrine that makes the United States a sort of elected dictatorship: a system in which the president, once in office, can do whatever he likes, and isn't obliged to consult or inform either Congress or the public.

Not long ago I would have thought it inconceivable that the Supreme Court would endorse that doctrine. But I would also have thought it inconceivable that a president would propound such a vision in the first place.

This is rich. High school civics obviously wasn't Krugman's strong subject.

Rumsfeld has press conferences weekly, and testifies before Congress regularly, as does Colin Powell, George Tenet, Robert Mueller, etc. Is Congress and the public uninformed? Only if they choose to be.

It wasn't President Bush who repeatedly claimed executive privilege and presidential immunity on issues dealing with his personal behavior -- like some American monarch. Instead Bush is claiming executive privilege on policy issues -- something that has a long history of validity.

*UPDATE* Despite his claims that President Bush is acting as some sort of dictator, Krugman's failure to be arrested on charges of being an enemy combatant prove that his hysterics are just that, hysterical.