Why investigate Cheney?

i'm glad you understood this by yourself , you didn't need to ask a question about it ...

what we're seeing today is a big drama staged by obama and his buddies to take the public eye off their failed policies ..

as you said , There is a game of distractions being played in Washington, D.C. right now. It is both intentional and designed to minimize conservative strengths.

We must not play the game as the left would have us play it.

Here is how the game is played ;

The President pushes cap and trade to the Senate while also advancing socialized healthcare.

As those balls advance, the Attorney General makes rumblings about prosecuting individuals who engaged in enhanced interrogation techniques.

While conservatives get distracted by the Attorney General, the administration claims Dick Cheney refused to disclose a CIA program and the Democrats will investigate.

Tomorrow Sonya Sotomayor begins her confirmation hearings.

By throwing all of these balls around, the left hopes to distract the right. Our natural inclination is to be distracted by the shiny national security balls. Some of us will fixate on Sotomayor.

Meanwhile, the leftist agenda makes it way further through Congress. Already, some Blue Dog Democrats are leaning toward supporting socialized healthcare. And the right is suddenly intrigued by the Cheney story, which is as much about distracting us from Nancy Pelosi’s lies about the CIA as it is to distract us from coming policy.

so ...DON'T PLAY THIS GAME ...

Keep your mind focused on the issues at hand. Cap and Trade, and Socialized Medicine. They are over hyping Cheney's investigation. If they are going to do it , let it be done. Now we have the Sotomayor confirmation hearings, do not get pulled into this soap opera they are trying to make of this. The media has not done it's job, either. We are facing layoffs, one after the other. Another Company in my home town just laid off approximately 30 workers. This is our focus. And it should be our hired officials.

I'm sorry, you're using a bad economy as an excuse to not prosecute a person for blatantly violating our constitutional rights to privacy? You don't think that it is just as important to punish those who violate our founding principles? Or you just don't want to punish the ones who share your own political views? 10 bucks says that if this was Clinton in the same shoes as Cheney right now, you would be all over him like white on rice. Hypocrite.

edit: Amen quirk!! Amen!

edit: If they break the law, I don't care what their political affiliation is, they should be prosecuted. Yes, the law matters, and it's time that we prove that again. Hold Cheney and Bush accountable for their blatant violation of the constitution.

It will prove that the rule of law mattes. Law breakers should be prosecuted, should they not? Should we stop prosecuting all people because of foreclosrues? His prosecution will prove we are a nation of laws and that nobody is above the law. Bipartisian solutions are great, but that does not mean we let people who break the law off the hook. No matter what party they are from. Would you support not charging people with other crimes as well? Or just politicians?

edit: Anyone, dem or con, who broke or breaks the law should be prosecuted. I don't care what party they are from. If Frank broke the law, absolutely he should be prosecuted. I belive in the rule of law and belive we are a nation founded on civil law. Without our laws, we are nothing. Civil law makes America great.

Why NOT investigate Cheney?

He broke his vows to uphold the Constitution of the United States, to name one crime.

If we DON'T investigate him, that sets a TERRIBLE precedent for government officials now and in the future.

Why do you think Cheney is exempt from investigation/prosecution? Are you related to him?

i think of it rather is an exceedingly undesirable concept for the federal government to do something like this. The time to realize this replaced into on a similar time as the Bush administration replaced into nevertheless in skill. they could desire to have tried to question Bush in the event that they believed he replaced into doing something unlawful. in any different case, it rather is purely political posturing. might you choose Obama to be taken care of this way after he's comprehensive being President? that's what this way of precedent might propose. basically considering the fact which you disagree with a definite administration does no longer propose you need to prosecute them. to realize this might decrease us to the accepted of a few banana republic. case in point, Obama has made some rather questionable strikes with regards to his dealing with of the motor vehicle agencies. he's clearly appearing exterior of the form. ought to we wait and positioned him in reformatory after his term is over? No, the time to oppose him is now. Failing that, we could desire to constantly no longer pass returned after the fact and attempt to unring the bell. *

It will give hope to the people if corrupt leaders are held accountable.

It opens the door for change.

This isn't about extra marital oral sex (Clinton) it's about unjustified mass killing.

He (and his klan) are the epitome of corruption.

His idiot made this obnoxiously obvious.

We want change and accountability.

Lynch the bastards.

Let's not confuse apples with oranges.

The fact is, one of the key problems plaguing this country over the last few decades in particular is our inability to trust our own government. If we held our officials accountable for their actions there'd likely be a lot less fraud, waste and corruption. And that, in turn, is good for our economy to boot.

By bipartisan the Democrats mean agreeing with everything they say.

Because he may have violated the law.