Osama's Rumsfeldian Dilemma

According to a "respected Middle East Media Research Institute" Osama bin Laden's video contains an implicit threat for Red State America:

Osama bin Laden warned in his October Surprise video that he will be closely monitoring the state-by-state election returns in tomorrow's presidential race — and will spare any state that votes against President Bush from being attacked, according to a new analysis of his statement.

If true, this would seem to pose a huge dilemma for America's terrorist enemy. A dilemma, by the way, for which Donald Rumsfeld can provide a solution.

As you recall, after 9/11 Rumsfeld immediately argued for an attack against Iraq. Richard Clarke, America's terrorist czar, pointed out that it was not Iraq but al Qaeda -- based in Afghanistan -- that had attacked us. Rumsfeld wisely responded that Afghanistan provided no targets against which America could retaliate. He was, of course, reacting to the objective fact that after years of war and Taliban neglect, Afghanisan languished as a fourth-world country reduced to rubble.

If, as this new translation argues, Osama truly views only Red States as his enemy he'll be in a real bind. Are there any iconic, high-value targets in Red States? Maybe Missouri's Independence Arch? (Of course that's in predominantly Blue St. Louis.) The Alamo? Maybe Mount Rushmore? Seriously, what Red State targets would Osama pursue?

I'm sure Osama will be calling his old friend Donald Rumsfeld for advice on this thorny dilemma.