Terror warnings and Democrats

First, read this article on how Kerry's team is reacting to the current, and any future, terror warnings.

Then read Captain Ed's analysis, excerpted here:

What almost no analysis has addressed, however, is the context of the alerts with regards to the capture of Naeem Noor Khan, the computer expert and al-Qaeda planner whose data provided the basis for the alert. Khan was captured on July 12 but his arrest was only recently acknowledged. Khan held surveillance for a number of financial targets in the New York area, apparently quite detailed, going back as far as three years ago. What we now know about AQ operations tells us that multi-year planning and careful building of teams is their hallmark, and their plans take at least that long to fully mature.

Now, with Khan's capture announced to the world and the collapse of his communications infrastructure to the field teams involved in any of his plans, one likely result will be that individual cells will act on their last orders and launch attacks in the near future. Their ability to coordinate will likely be severely disrupted, as terrorists cells probably have no direct contact with each other, so that attacks occur randomly and not strategically, as on 9/11.

. . . Without Khan's communication network, the cells will have no other way to communicate back to AQ masters or each other, and the lunatics will be forced to disband quietly and assimilate into the American society they hate with such passion. Their money will quickly dry up and with it their ability to do anything on a large scale.

Faced with these two choices, which one do you suppose the AQ cells in the US that Khan controlled will select? Assimilation and surrender, or following the last plan given to them? And given that the Pakistanis have sundered their communications and with it access to new financing, when do you suppose that decision will be made?

Frightening thought process, but unfortunately logical.