Since Kathleen Blanco would be dead in the water is a nonstarter (my apologies for the distasteful phrase I used previously) in a bid for a reelection as Louisina Governor, this is good news for the Dems, via Charlie Cook:

Former Democratic Sen. John Breaux is seriously considering a bid for Governor of Louisiana. John Maginnis, editor of the highly regarded Louisiana Political Fax Weekly, initially reported the news this morning, and the Cook Political Report has independently verified that it is true. Apparently Democratic Gov. Kathleen Blanco has privately indicated a willingness to step aside if Breaux, or possibly another Democrat, such as Rep. Charlie Melancon, would run instead.

None of this is a done deal, but Breaux is serious, and his candidacy would change the face of the race for Democrats.

Breaux would win imo.

It isn't enough, but it's something. After years of nothing, the vote is worthy of note.

After four days of emotional debate over the extent of presidential powers in wartime and the proper role of Congress, the House of Representatives adopted a resolution today denouncing President Bush’s plan to send more American troops to Iraq.

The 246 to 182 outcome included 17 Republican votes in favor of the (unfortunately) nonbinding resolution.

Jose Padilla's has competency hearing has been continued to February 22 due to a report from prison shrinks that he's mentally fit for trial. The defense claims there are inaccuracies in the report.

The Christian Science Monitor today examine Padilla's allegation that he was tortured while held in the South Carolina brig for four years and cannot assist his lawyers in his defense.

...federal prosecutors are expected to urge the judge to ignore everything that took place during Padilla's military detention. They say his harsh treatment is irrelevant to whether he is mentally competent to stand trial.

Padilla's lawyers disagree. They say their client was tortured by the military and they are asking the judge to order the government to fully account for its treatment of Padilla.

Here's an article from a few weeks ago examining whether Padilla's allegations meet the definition of torture.

Update: The Judge has ordered three from the S.C. military brig to testify at Padilla's competency hearing.

While those with drug convictions are not able to get federal financial aid for college, the military is increasingly happy to welcome them into its ranks.

The elimination of student aid for drug offenders is unwise, unfair and as*-backwards. You can add your voice here.

A judge in Italy has ordered 26 people, most of them CIA agents, to stand trial on kidnapping charges. In 2003, Egyptian cleric Osama Mustafa Hassan was kidnapped in Italy and flown to an Egyptian prison where he alleges he was tortured.

Now the question is, will Italy seek extradition of the CIA agents from the U.S.

Lawyers say they have compiled thousands of pages of documents and testimony from Italian agents past and present, some of whom have acknowledged working with the US in planning the abduction. The trial is due to begin on 8 June.

Here's more on Ghost Air.

It's hard to buy publicity like this.

DEFENSE lawyer Joe Tacopina will be featured in a six-page profile in GQ under the headline, "1 800 Save My Ass." The story by Lisa DePaulo begins: "Suspected of murdering that blond girl in Aruba? Having some problems with your appointment as homeland-security chief? Made the mistake of having sex with Christie Brinkley's husband? Call Joe Tacopina, the best-dressed, smoothest-talking, hardest-working criminal-defense attorney going, and for a mere $750 an hour, everything will be okay."

Maybe Libby should have dialed that number.

Bad news today out of a federal court in Mexico. Duane "Dog the Bounty Hunter" Chapman has lost his appeal challenging extradition to Mexico to stand trial on charges of "deprivation of liberty" for his capture of Andrew Luster.

In October, 28 members of Congress sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice asking her to block the extradition.

Dog had offered an apology to Mexico, pay a fine, make a donation to charity and forfeit his bond money. That should have been enough.

It's time to free Dog. And yes, he's a long-time pal.

Marcy Wheeler, live-blogging for Firedoglake today, reports on the tedious legal arguments over jury instructions. She says in tonight's video, Libby attorney Ted Wells told the Judge he wants four hours for his closing argument.

If you don't have four hours to sit through it, keep your mouse poised at Firedoglake and Huffington Post (I'll be back in D.C. live-blogging at HuffPo.)

If you want the shorthand version of Wells' defense, here is the revised "theory of defense" instruction Team Libby today requested be read to the jury:

On the flight back to Denver today, I couldn't escape the Anna Nicole Smith hearing on the plane's tv. I'd totally tuned out the story the past five days. But it just keeps getting more bizarre by the day.

An Indian tribe is expected to seek a DNA test because she applied for tribal membership in the late 1990's.

The Tejas indian nation may file papers with Broward court requesting a DNA test to determine whether Smith has the tribal genome.

If Smith, whom tribal officials say applied for tribal membership in the late 1990s, does have Tejas blood, the matters of her body and her burial could be further complicated, possibly even requiring a tribal court's ruling, said Juan Matthews, a spokesman for the Tejas nation.

The Judge appointed a guardian ad litem for the child. All sides, not surprisingly, objected, to no avail. He also appointed an "administrator ad litum" to provide a roadmap.

And the judge ordered her embalmed.

"We want to preserve the beauty and model figure of Miss Smith," said Judge Seidlin. "Beauty was important to her."

Atrios appears not to think much of Broder's prediction of a Bush Bounce:

Dean Broder says the Bush Bounce is coming!!!!!!!!! AWESUM!!!!

It may seem perverse to suggest that, at the very moment the House of Representatives is repudiating his policy in Iraq, President Bush is poised for a political comeback. But don't be astonished if that is the case.

Well, politics, like everything, is relative. What I think Broder is really talking about is that the Democratic Congress is likely to take a tumble, because of Iraq:

[Bush] minimized the stakes in the House debate by endorsing the good motives of his critics, rejecting the notion that their actions would damage U.S. troops' morale or embolden the enemy -- all by way of saying that the House vote was no big deal. . . . [B]y contrasting today's vote on a nonbinding resolution with the pending vote on funding the war in Iraq, he shifted the battleground to a fight he is likely to win -- and put the Democrats on the defensive. Much of their own core constituency wants them to go beyond nonbinding resolutions and use the power of the purse to force Bush to reduce the American commitment in Iraq.

Sure the Dems support with the base is going to suffer if that happens. But more than that, Dems will join Bush in being blamed on Iraq if that happens. The Dems must see that a position on Iraq can not be avoided. And the choices are binary - in or out. Vote funding for the war and the Iraq Debacle becomes your Debacle too. Vote against it and it does not. It is that simple.

It is "cut and run" all over again. In 2006, the Dems were smart enough not to bite on Rove's gambit. I smell them biting this time, and taking the Iraq Debacle on their shoulders. Incredibly stupid politically as well as being bad policy.

And when that happens, Bush will look better relatively in comparison. Call it an Einstein Bounce.

In a post, Matt Yglesias sparked a discussion of what exactly is the President's war power, what view did the Clinton Administration espouse and what does the War Powers Act say to the matter. In a comment, Marty Lederman expressed his view:

The big question here is not the War Powers Resolution, but the Constitution. What sorts of hostilities can the President initiate unilaterally under the Constitution? Matt is right that the Clinton Administration took a very broad view -- see Haiti, Bosnia Bosnia and Kosovo, for starters; we basically concluded that congressional pre-approval is only required for a complete, or total, war (see footnote 5 of the Bosnia opinion, hinting that the Korean War might have been unlawful because Congress had not authorized it in advance).

. . . as a practical matter, the issue is determined -- the President believes he has the power, and he won't hesitate to exercise it.

Unless. Unless Congress actually passes a statute, probably over Bush's signature, that would prohibit military action against Iran. . . .

There is much to disagree with in what Lederman writes. Mostly because he is comparing apples (Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti) to oranges (Iran.)

Greg Sargent has the goods on the lying phony "civil" Republican David Brooks. David Brooks now:

Far be it from me to get in the middle of a liberal purge, but would anybody mind if I pointed out that the calls for Hillary Clinton to apologize for her support of the Iraq war are almost entirely bogus?... Today, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party believes that the world, and Hillary Clinton in particular, owes it an apology. . . .

David Brooks then:

Here's what Brooks wrote in The Weekly Standard back in 2003 after the Saddam statue fell:

I'm curious about how all the war opponents are going to react if things continue to go well. Sure, they opposed Saddam, they will say. They just didn't want to do anything about him. . . . They were tolerant. Tolerant of tyranny. They doubted, and continue to doubt America's willingness and ability to serve as a force for good in the world. That was their crucial mistake. I suspect they will not even now admit their errors. I doubt the people of Europe will say: We were wrong. . . . I doubt the Arab propagandists will say: We will never spread such distortions again. We will never again be so driven by resentment and dishonesty.

What a piece of work. A dishonest piece of work.