John King's interview with Dick Cheney was no Frost-Nixon like experience, and a Frost-Nixon like interaction is what was needed given all of the legitimate controversies swirling around the past administration.  The session need not be a witch hunt.  Folks on the right from congressional leaders to the core of the conservative movement have disavowed the Bush administration.  At the recent conservative CPAC conclave in D.C., Bush was regarded as a four letter word.  Simply accounting for loss of faith from the right in the past administration may have been topic enough to explore.  Instead, this "interview" was simply an opportunity for Cheney to present his policy prescriptions as competing alternatives to everything the Obama administration is doing.  Seven weeks after the inauguration, the right now has very little moral standing to complain about Jimmy Carter's statements during a Republican administration.  

But, not only did Cheney get to simply state what he pleased; he did so with shocking impunity despite what the underlying data would actually suggest.  Cheney asserted that the Obama administration was using the financial crisis to drive a social agenda.  The press has done an admirable job in debating this issue - specifically, is the president taking on too much at one time.  But, it's incredibly ironic for Cheney to assert that THIS president is using a crisis to press forward with a political agenda.  But again, the press bows to Cheney.  King did not press forward with the obvious...Those who criticized Bush policy on Iraq during the run up to the war were labeled unpatriotic.   In fact, those who questioned the wisdom of the policy or questioned the basis for going to war like Joseph Wilson (and his wife Valerie Plame) were taken out politically using dubious (and via Scooter Libby's indictment, criminal) mechanisms.

Next, Cheney asserted that Fannie and Freddie (upon his reading of the data) were the primary cause of the current financial crisis.  This assertion is part of the narrative that it was “government that caused the housing bubble” through a push for minority lending that started with Carter and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and took up steam under Clinton's aggressive enforcement of the act.  The narrative was convenient, but untrue.  Facts reveal that Fannie and Freddie (the GSEs) came to the subprime lending game late after loan originators had already exploited the prime mortgages for collateralized debt repackaging.  CNBC's fairly comprehensive dissection of the events leading up to the meltdown (House of Cards) does a decent job of plowing through this.  Fannie and Freddie as pseudo-private institutions wanted to get in on the action.  The GOP pushed to stop Fannie and Freddie from aggressively going after the ultra-subprime market primarily because now they would competing with private loan originators versus some sense of duty to keep the GSEs out of trouble.  And remember, Home Ownership was the banner under which the Bush administration turned a blind eye toward all the subprime origination.  On this topic, the two parties had aligned interests.  The GOP aligned with the loan originators who were collecting substantial fees and the Democrats aligned with lower-income borrowers.  In addition, the Community Reinvestment Act applies to large regulated commercial banks.  Banks that have received the "Outstanding" rating for CRA activity had stayed out of subprime trouble until acquisition of less careful entities (see Wells Fargo).  Cheney's "reading" of the facts is gravely flawed by any objective account.  But, King as we can know routinely expect from the press failed to press on any of these obvious contradictions.  

Cheney had legitimate foreign policy insight to put forward, but these were put forward with a know-it-all arrogance that diminished their substance.  But that’s what was so shocking.  For a man with an abysmal track record of prognostication (remember: 1. we would be greeted as liberators, 2. the Iraq was would pay for itself, etc.), Cheney came off impressively smug or even arrogant.  ?  During his interview he was extremely comfortable in mischaracterizing events.  Either he completely self-deluded or he knows the spin he’s trying to create.  I’d bet on the latter.

Bottome line: 1. The press gave Cheney a huge pass as they seem to make a habit of doing. 2. Cheney asserted political claims as insight that are not legitimized by the facts.  

 The real question...what is Dick Cheney up to?