Come on Economist...

I agree with almost everything in the recent Economist column about homeland security except for this:

"The Senate voted this week to allocate to rural states a larger-than-planned share of the homeland security budget, on the ground that no one knows what the terrorists will do next. The senators have a point. An attack on a shopping mall in Idaho might scare more Americans than one on the White House."

Huh? An attack on rural Idaho would have more of an effect on the American physche than an attack on the White House? Maybe its just me but a successful attack on the White House would be much more devastating than in Idaho or anywhere else in the U.S. for that matter.