Glenn: you profile describes you as some kind of big time litigator. Instead of complaining about these "revelations of lawbreaking", why don't you file an injunction somewhere to get this so called lawbreaking stopped. Put down your pen and do something. Apparently nothing less than our country is at stake.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5IsKkfjm73A&eurl=

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071004-4.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 4, 2007
Press Briefing by Dana Perino
James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:42 P.M. EDT

MS. PERINO: Good afternoon. I do not have anything to start with, so we can go to questions.
Deb?

Q: Just generally, does the administration -- does the President believe that head-slapping and simulated drowning are necessary tactics to use against suspected terrorists to keep America safe?

MS. PERINO: [...] In this new war, which is an unprecedented war, facing an enemy unlike we've ever faced before, sometimes -- oftentimes the best information that you get is from the terrorists themselves.
[...] And to win the war on terror we must be able to detain them, interrogate them, question them, and when appropriate, prosecute them -- in America -- when we capture them here in America and on battlefields around the world. The policy of the United States is not to torture. The President has not authorized it, he will not authorize it.
Martha.

Q: In a conference call in July, a senior administration official said that they would no longer -- or wouldn't use extreme temperatures of heat and cold. Is that true?

MS. PERINO: I don't know. I don't -- I wasn't on -- I don't recall.

[...]

Q: What is your definition of "torture?"

MS. PERINO: Well, that's clearly spelled out in the -- in the Detainee Treatment Act, and interpreted under the December 2004 opinion that governs, and has governed -- and if you look at the footnote from that opinion, governs all subsequent opinions that have been made by the Justice Department.

[...]

Q: Dana, you talk about being within the corners of the law. But are you satisfied that there's enough clarity, in sort of the definition --

[...]

MS. PERINO: Now, if there were an attack on this country, all of the questions in here would be very different. You would be asking me, how did you allow this to happen? And what I am telling you is that within the law, we are making sure that we are doing everything we can to prevent it from happening again.

[...]

Q: And when you say that if we had just had an attack, the questions would be very different, what then would you say to someone like Senator McCain, who feels that harsh interrogation techniques are not more effective in generating valuable information?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think -- I think what we'd say to Senator McCain is that we appreciated the work he did on the Detainee Treatment Act, and the President was proud to sign it into law, that we don't torture, and that we appreciate his attention to this effort and to this issue, and that we follow the law as he would want us to.

Q: But if there can be reasonable disagreements on what amounts to torture, then what you are actually saying is, we don't believe what we do is torture.

MS. PERINO: Look, under the United States' interpretation and -- we -- in that December 2004 opinion that is publicly available at the Justice Department for everyone to see, we believe that we are following our laws and that we are meeting our international obligations in order to prevent attacks on Americans and our allies. And we're meeting that.
Peter.

Q: Dana, to what extent has the President been personally involved in deciding what is tough, safe, and legal?

MS. PERINO: I don't know. I think those decisions are made at the -- at a level where they have lawyer -- individuals like Steven Bradbury, who's discussed in the article, at the Office of Legal Counsel. But I am not aware of presidential involvement.

Q: So he doesn't necessarily sign off on these then?

MS. PERINO: No, I don't think so. But I --

Q: The Attorney General does though, right?

MS. PERINO: I would guess. Can I refer you to the Justice Department, because I just don't know what their chain of command is.

[...]

Q: Paraphrasing what the Geneva Conventions said, it said that -- [...] if there is some kind of a problem with clarity it is supposed to be taken to an international crimes court. So --

MS. PERINO: Which we are not going to do.

Q: Why not?

MS. PERINO: I don't think it's necessary, April. We have clarified in the Detainee Treatment Act and in this December 2004 opinion that the United States does not torture. And outside of some individuals suggesting that we do, I think that our allies are comfortable -- especially because of the protection that we're affording them, as well.

Q: Dana, is the President at all concerned that despite his repeated assurances that the U.S. does not engage in torture, that there are persistent concerns and questions raised? Does this suggest he is just not credible when he says the United States --

MS. PERINO: Absolutely not. And I actually think that the people around the country understand that there are things that are secret and classified for a reason, and it's for their protection. And I know that they place trust in this federal government to make sure that a 9/11 doesn't happen again.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071004-4.html

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5IsKkfjm73A&eurl=

How do we make what happens in DC "real" to the Average Joe/Jane?

Or the reverse.

Beats me. I can imagine that the end of federalism might do it, so that all politics go back to being truly local, instead of something done by professionals far away.

Big/federal government is difficult to get emotional about in the absence of an external or economic threat.

One reason you don't get many invites to ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN, and Fox, Glenn, is that most top "talent" in the media is guilty of at least cheerleading the invasion of Iraq, and of wanting to believe big Daddy and not their own eyes. Glenn, I read you because you don't have to kiss anybody's butt, and worry about getting invited to insiders' Nantucket parties. I believe that I will never see you chuckling on "Meet the Press" with "the gang" and politely aiming for "acceptance."

The rest of the top "talent" is afraid of you, because you could go on their show and rip THEM new assholes for their many acts of enabling. Some of them probably are itching for some kind of revenge smear on YOU for when you named THEIR names on your blog. They know you have no fear of rubbing their noses in their own s_ _ _! We almost have to let thirty years pass so that these people RETIRE, before the double-think and cover-your-butt-don't-rock-the-boat ends. It's hard-wired into their careerist brains.

Maybe the only way you could reach the TV audience with integrity is with your own show, but you're not perky and bubbly enough, and your message is, frankly, like eating from the tree of knowledge - can the average American stand to hear the truth, day after day? Do they have the patience to work lawfully within the system? I hope, I hope.

Many Democrats in Congress also have s_ _ _ that you could rub their noses into. Would they be willing to appear on your show? I doubt it.

So, your readers love you but the powers that be don't. Keep up the good work!