The following item was written by Matthew Blake, a Nation magazine intern:

This past week The Washington Post ran a four-part, as much-depth-as-you-can-take series on Vice President Dick Cheney. It unflinchingly documents Cheney's unprecedented power and secrecy. His wide-ranging (and often undercover) influence stretches from encouraging the use of torture during interrogations of suspected terrorists to orchestrating a massive fish-kill in Oregon. (For the full, super-sized account, read the series here.)

The articles so thoroughly reinforces the image of Cheney as a dark, ruthless powerbroker that the question is not "How awful is this guy?" but, "Who can now defend him?" While Cheney has earned a reputation for dismissing public opinion, he has long enjoyed support from conservative and neoconservative pundits and advocates. Surely, then, some of his ideological pals must have come to his rescue, denouncing the Post series (written by Barton Gellman and Jo Becker) and poking holes in this obvious liberal claptrap. I went looking to find out who in neocon and conservative circles were standing by their man.

First, I turned to Fox News, but its Web site contained nary a word on the Cheney series. No acknowledgment of its existence--and no counterattack. Next, I visited The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times. Nada. The Web sites of these centers of conservative opinion were letting their champion in the White House dangle in the wind. (If the editorial section of the Journal could not defend Cheney in the face of the liberal media, what good is it?) The crusading neocons of The Weekly Standard, I figured, must be firing back. After all, Cheney helped bring about the war in Iraq they had craved for years. And a Weekly writer, Stephen Hayes, has been working on a positive Cheney bio. (Good timing!) The Standard could set the world straight on the real Dick Cheney. But its Web site, updated daily with conservative opinions from both staff writers and the blogosphere, offered nothing on Cheney.

Could it be that conservatives were cutting-and-running on their great torchbearer. I performed a Lexis-Nexis search for every article with "Dick Cheney" from newspapers, wires and blogs for the days the series ran. Once again, there was no one defending Cheney. I Googled "the case for Dick Cheney." That produced several articles entitled, "The Case Against Dick Cheney."

Nearing despondency, I was comforted by the realization that I had overlooked a key source. I hadn't checked the National Review. With 50 years of principled conservative commentary, NR would not be intimidated by a report loaded with named sources in the liberal media. And it looked like I had struck pro-Cheney gold. On the magazine's Web site, Jonah Goldberg had posted a column with the courageous title, "Confessions of a Cheney Fan." Goldberg was giving voice to the voiceless, telling the virtual world that "Cheney is pretty much the only guy out there who walks the walk. He truly doesn't care what people think about him. I love that." Finally, a conservative willing to stand up for the Big Guy. But in ensuing paragraphs, Goldberg betrays his love and tosses Cheney overboard. "It becomes clear," he wrote, "that the Cheney method leaves a lot to be desired." Goldberg concluded that Cheney's shadowy, uncompromising approach to government is "ultimately counterproductive."

I was shocked. With this assault on Cheney, Goldberg was practically giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. (Don't the evildoers want Americans to despise the vice president?) And at this point, I gave up. The message seemed to be, Dick, you're on your own. Good thing he has an entire branch of government to himself.

YOUR TAX DOLLARS NOT AT WORK. This week the House armed services committee released a report that noted the United States has spent more than $19 billion on training and equipping 346,500 members of the Iraqi military and police force. The report concludes that many of the Iraqi security forces are not yet up to speed. That's after the Bush administration has spent an average of $55,000 a person. Maybe we'd better off if we just pull out and airdrop bales of money.

Posted by David Corn at June 29, 2007 12:27 PM