Krauthammer, in a blog post yesterday, ripped Andrew Sullivan over this piece, which attacks Krauthammer for flip-flopping on a gasoline tax. Well worth reading the entire piece, but here’s an excerpt:

Sullivan’s entire ad hominem conclusion — that my views are animated by nothing but the basest, most corrupt partisan motives — turned out to be a complete invention based on his inability to read dates.
And, characteristically, on total ignorance of the subject he is writing about — in this case, my views on a gasoline tax. I’ve been an advocate of a tax on oil not since December 2008 but since 1983 (“The Oil Bust Panic,” The New Republic, February 21, 1983). I have not changed my position in the intervening 26 years. I’ve criticized every administration, Republican and Democratic, for not taxing petroleum, beginning with the Reagan administration, which I repeatedly criticized for the idiocy of trying to persuade the Saudis to curtail production and raise the world price rather than impose some kind of oil tax on our own.
I’ve advocated a petroleum tax at least 20 times over the years. (The only thing I have changed is the form the levy should take: from an oil import fee to the more simply administered and refunded gasoline tax.) I have never changed my views.

Sullivan apologized last night for the error:

And it’s a most embarrassing one. I completely misread the date on one of Charles Krauthammer’s columns on climate change and he rightly excoriates me for the error. I’m not sure how it happened, but I assumed, I think, that a piece sent to me in response to the climategate issue was current and didn’t check the date. It makes the post largely moot. Krauthammer does omit the gas tax idea in that column, as I noted, but he explains the small discrepancy thus:
The gas tax wasn’t mentioned because it’s not particularly relevant to the subject I was addressing — the ideological rigidity of climate-change activism. And because my views on the gas tax had been repeated so many times, writing about it again would have been superfluous.
I was wrong in inferring any shift of Krauthammer’s position under Obama; and I apologize to Krauthammer and my readers for both the mistake and the unfair inference.

Now. When the maternity of Sarah Palin’s children is finally resolved to Sullivan’s satisfaction, will she get an apology, too?