As I mentioned in response to davidhollander, Cheney's personal background is extremely important. If Kerry came out in support of PRISM et al., that would absolutely give me some pause--he actively served in and was a vehement dissenter of the Vietnam conflict.

If Cheney were simply a chicken-hawk, then there would be no issue. If he were simply a profiteer, there would also be no issue. But his active role as both is worrisome: he stands to profit from his direct ability to shape public opinion as a once-elected representative of the population.

As our society discusses this issue, it is important to take into account not only what is said, but why it is being said. This is what is meant by assessing credibility to speak about a certain matter. The sum of a person's actions informs the listener about his or her credibility and Cheney is no exception.

And if it was Bob Kerrey, a Navy SEAL, vietnam veteran, MoH recipient, Republican from nebraska?

Why did you assume I used a Democrat as an example?

I must have misread the name in your comment. The greater point I was making still stands: as far as I know, neither Kerry nor Kerrey blur the lines between public service and military industry as much as Cheney does. If Cheney had at least served and been consistent, his opinions on military actions and these recent leaks' effects on US defenses would at least have some backing.

The particular MoH recipient I would have used for anything involving domestic spying and civil rights would have been Senator Inouye; 442/100th and the Japanese internments in WW2 seem like the US's best example of valor in the face of rampant domestic discrimination. He was on Watergate and Iran-Contra, too.

Sadly he died in 2012.

Using Sen Inouye as an example would not have provided any information about the person I was having the discussion with.