Live (for the moment) From Washington, DC

Where, along with NYC, we've been told by homeland security that we're less at risk of a terrorist attack than Montana, Utah or Rhode Island.

Isn't it OBVIOUS that terrorists would be after those targets instead of the ones they've already had success at hitting? Why hit the Pentagon again, or the Capitol or White House when you could hit a target in Provo or Butte. Obviously the press would cover those much more extensively.

Chertoff (who unsurpisingly in this administration, is still in his job) has said that officials want to "spread the money to other places" -- yes, you have it. Bush & buddies want to curry favor with the heartland by sending them money to protect them from . . . well, . . . not getting money?

At least I know now that I can wander the streets of DC or NYC in safety. No self respecting terrorist would apparently attack them again!