Good morning, gentle readers. This week I, Alex, from Martini Revolution, will be your humble narrator of this blog roundup, in the absence of your usual and outstanding host, Mike. If you have any posts you would like to bring to my attention this week, your correspondence is very welcome and I can be reached at alexde AT gmail DOT com.

The issue of torture continues to come up, and thankfully Dana Perino assures us we aren't doing it, even if she hasn't clue one about what we are doing, or how the torture we're not doing is defined. John Edwards has doubts about the President's veracity on this matter. World War II veterans must have doubts as well, since they criticized the current war and the torturing of prisoners (which the administration claims isn't happening, even if it can't say what torture is). Jack Goldsmith, former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, paradoxically, wrote a whole book about this administration's penchant for issuing legal opinions to justify torture. Meanwhile, Conservative Commentator Jon Swift continues to wonder, "Are We Tasering Enough People?"

Larry Craig decides not to resign after the judge rules against his motion to overturn his conviction for wide-stancing and foot-tapping in the bathroom, disconcerting Republicans, spurring cynical applause from Democrats, and even causing one blogger to break out into song. Then, Ted Haggard's man-whore taps his way into the story.

On a lighter fatter note, Jonah Goldberg, aka "The Doughy Pantload," suffers a grievous memory lapse, failing to recall even a single one of the 257,986 times conservatives have called their opponents "traitors."

On a more tragic note, Bush says, "No Health Care for You!" to little kids, and the major GOP candidates all follow, like lemmings.

In a shocker, President - seemingly - for - life - Musharraf won a landslide victory, without eliciting too much comment from leftblogland, but fortunately there's always Metroblogging Karachi to keep us up to date. I think.

(h/t Heather)

Download | play Download | play

Jon Stewart sits down with the former assistant attorney general of the Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldsmith, to discuss his new book, The Terror Presidency. While we've heard the stories before, it is still so frightening to hear the insider's take on the Machiavellian maneuvers of this administration.

Do you think the ultimate irony might be that all the work that Dick Cheney has done will make Hillary Clinton the most powerful president in the history of the United States?

Bill Moyers had on Jack Goldsmith, former head the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, to discuss how the White House was reacting in their prosecution of the "War on Terror." Note how fear-mongering wasn't limited to the general American public, but to their legal counsel as well.

From the YouTube description:

In these two excerpts from Bill Moyers' Journal, Jack Goldsmith, former head the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, gives an insider's view of advising the President on the limits of executive power during the war on terror.

In the second excerpt, Goldsmith recounts what he calls "the most amazing scene I'd ever witnessed"-the night then White House counsel Alberto Gonzalez and former White House chief of staff Andrew Card Gonzalez, went to the hospital to try to persuade Attorney General John Ashcroft to give his permission on a secret surveillance plan, overriding acting Attorney General James Comey.

You can watch the entire episode online at PBS.com

Jonathan Schwarz has a great catch on Bush's signing statements.

When Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe first began writing stories about Bush's presidential signing statements last year, former Bush administration lawyers told us not to be concerned:

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor who until last year oversaw the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel for the administration, said the statements do not change the law; they just let people know how the president is interpreting it.

''Nobody reads them," said Goldsmith. ''They have no significance. Nothing in the world changes by the publication of a signing statement..."

As a new story by Savage explains, that's apparently now inoperative:

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, defended Bush's use of signing statements and his expansive view of the president's constitutional powers.

"We are executing the law as we believe we are empowered to do so," Fratto said. "The signing statements certainly do and should have an impact. They are real."

So which is it? Maybe some enterprising White House reporter can ask Tony Snow about it....