Yesterday was a big news day, and none of it was good.

First, we had the fallout from Karl Rove's comment: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and prepared for war. Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

Oh, yeah, he made this comment in Manhattan.

Paging John McCain, we need a Republican with some class here.

Karl, baby. The use-of-force resolution passed on September 14, 2001 read, in part, "[T]he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Passed the Senate, 98-0. The two not voting were Larry Craig of Idaho and Jesse Helms of North Carolina. I don't assume they were out preparing indictments or therapy for the terrorists, but probably had a good reason for not being there. I'm sure you'd give the same presumption if they were John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.

Now, can we agree there are some liberals in the Senate? Yeah, probably. They really must have watered down the language in there to get that passed. Let's take a look at it Oh, and it was sponsored by a guy named Tom Daschle. Democratic Minority Leader. South Dakota.

Later that day, the House of Representatives passed, by a vote of 420-1, the same resolution. One person dissented, to wit, Barbara Lee, a Democrat of California.

OK, so, let's presume that Barbara Lee was a liberal. (I don't know a damn thing about her, but, hey, we're in Roveland now, so facts don't really matter.) So, on the strength of her vote, liberals were not "prepared for war?" I dunno, there were apparently a few of them who voted to give the President blanket authority to take all appropriate means against nations or groups who HE determined (no legislative or judicial discretion there, all on the President's shoulders) had a part in 9-11.

Yeah, wimpy indeed.

Maybe it was the Patriot Act. Y'know, liberals are always complaining about the Patriot Act. They get so irritated when you try to do searches on the whim of the executive branch or find out what people are reading. They were gnawing at the heels of that damn thing all the way back in 2001.

Or not. Actually, the appropriate description of what happened when the Patriot Act came to the floor of the Senate in 2001 was that everyone rolled over and voted yes. One -- ONE -- person voted against it, Russ Feingold of Minnesota. Ted Kennedy, whoI think everyone agrees is a liberal, voted for it. John Kerry voted for it. Hillary. Barbara Boxer. Even that scofflaw Dick Durbin voted for it.

Indictments? Who the hell was talking about indictments then?

I am hoping and praying we see a MAJOR backlash against these discussions. Things in this country get scarier by the day.

Another scary thing. The Supreme Court. For the love of God, now they can take your property to build a shopping mall? Baloney. I'm not sure I consider myself much of a strict constructionist, but just about anyone can read the provision, right there in the Fifth Amendment that "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

This ruling is ridiculous. If a developer wants to buy land and build it, don't just go say to the government, "Hey, I'm gonna create new jobs, take out Ma and Pa's ranch, please!" Rather, you go to Ma and Pa, and you get them to a price they think is fair for giving up their ranch.

No longer. Now, you just have to convince the government. And you don't even have to convince them that much -- this ruling holds that there needn't even be a "reasonable certainty" that expected public benefits will actually accrue.

I think, and I say this nervously as someone who is on a school board and relies on property tax revenue, people should start demanding that the valuation of their home be keyed to only what they would get if it were taken by eminent domain. And I think there's a decent argument to be made that everyone's property value has now been diminished by the possibility of the government swooping in to take your property.

I'll leave the last word on this subject to Justice O'Connor. While she was definitely asleep at the switch in Bush v. Gore, she phrased it most eloquently here:

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Meanwhile, General Abizaid testified yesterday that the insurgency is not shrinking, but has stayed constant, which is in direct contradiction to what Vice President Cheney said recently. Leaving us, as per usual with this administration, with two possibilities: Either they don't know the truth or they're hiding it.

You tell me which is more disturbing.