Is Van Hollen That Desperate Already? 

The Terrorist card? Already?

"We have in Wisconsin terrorists who are training and raising funds," Van Hollen told reporters at a Capitol press conference this afternoon.

"Terrorists in this country and around the world are not disappearing. They are laying low. They are waiting for an opportunity to strike again," he said in an apparent reference to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.
...
Van Hollen declined to offer details, saying that he learned of the terrorists' activities while he was U.S. attorney for the western half of Wisconsin and is still prohibited by federal secrecy laws from disclosing further information.
...
"But I am able to stand up here and say, having been U.S. attorney, that we do have a major and continuing terrorist problem in the United States of America, and the Western District is just as at risk as anywhere else," he said.

I especially like the part where he says he "knows of the groups" but can't say more because he's not allowed. Then why say anything? Anyone else reminded of when John Kerry talked about all the foreign leaders he wasn't allowed to name that would like to see him be President? I'm sorry... but this just wreaks of sensationalism at this point. Could terrorist strike western Wisconsin? Well sure. Would they? Would you? Just step back for a second and imagine the propaganda that would be launched in the Middle East after an attack by the terrorists...

Terrorist #1: Allah be praised for we have destroyed the people of La Crosse!
Terrorist #2: You mean the infidels who play that silly game with the netted stick and tiny ball?
Terrorist #1: No! The city! In Western Wisconsin!
Terrorist #2: Where is Wisconsin?

Or perhaps...

Terrorist #1: Allah be praised for Hudson has been incinerated!
Terrorist #2: Rock Hudson? The Actor? Those infidels and their love of television will pay sorely now! Wait... isn't he already dead?
Terrorist #1: No! The city! In Western Wisconsin!
Terrorist #2: Where is Wisconsin?

If we're just as at risk as everyone else... why wouldn't the terrorist strike anywhere else? After all, if Los Angeles is just as vulnerable as Hudson, I have a feeling that Los Angeles is more of a target. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to make light of the terrorist threat. But we've gotten to the point where we're using that threat in every debate, whether it's deserved or not. People try to use it as a way to stop debate immediately.

Why does West Bend need a new city hall? If the local government wants to try to get it, I suppose they can try, and it would make a worthwhile debate. But already they're saying its because of "security" issues, as if terrorists are going to strike at the heart of American democracy by blowing up the city hall of a city in Wisconsin that three quarters of Wisconsin residents couldn't point out on a map if they were asked. They're using it to suppress debate. It's not up for debate they'll say... we just have to have it because of security concerns.

I'd suggest that all the AG candidates stick to real debates on real issues that they have real control over.