Alternate bomb theories: Hot and hotter

Investigators and commentators have given us more than one alternate "take" on the bombings in London. We can place these theories in two categories, spicy and ultra-spicy. Let's start with a whiff (just a whiff, mind you) of ultra-spiciness:

1. Habanero-strength. Your best guide remains Xymphora, although aficionados of the strong stuff will want to take a look at the continuing work of Alex Jones (who has published a genuinely intriguing continuation of the Peter Power/Rudy Guiliani aspect) and perhaps even Jeff Rense. These gentlemen will surely guide you into some very strange places, places you may not care to go. (You never know when Rense will bring chupacabras into the story.)

Call me a wimp, but the "habanero" version is rather too hot for me. I prefer...

2. Jalapeno-strength. This scenario is a little more digestible, but still packs plenty of heat.

One blogger refers to this scenario as the "Orange Alert scandal." The story, which grows insanely complex with each passing minute, comes down to this: The Bush administration, in a mad rush to create a terror alert during the Democratic convention (all the better to remind us of the threat to America, don'tcha know), inadvertently (?) revealed the name of their most important intelligence asset within Al Qaida. This is a man named Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, an Al Qaida computer expert "turned" by our side and kept in place. (Just like the old Cold War days, eh wot?)

As John Avorosis tells it in his seminal story:

3. ABC reports that names in Khan's computer matched a suspected cell of British citizens of Pakistani decent, many of who lived near the town of Luton, England - Luton is the same town where, not coincidentally, last week's London bombing terrorists began their day. According to ABC, authorities thought they had stopped the subway plot with the arrest of more than a dozen people last year associated with Khan. Obviously, they hadn't.

4. Those arrests were the arrests that the Bush administration botched by announcing a heightened security alert the week of the Democratic Convention. The alert was raised because of information found on Khan's computer (this is in the public record already, see below). In its effort to either prove that the alert was serious, or to try and scare people during the Dem Convention, the administration gave the press too much information about WHY they raised the alert. This put the media on the trail of Khan - they found him, and they published his name.

In other words, the Bushies were able to trump up their terror alert -- but in the process, they outed the most important mole we had.

If that mole had remained in place, might he have prevented the London bombings? Many think so:

Again, these were guys connected to the plot to blow up the London subway last week. Some may have escaped because of Bush administration negligence involving a leak. And in fact, ABC News' terrorism consultant says the group that bombed London was likely activated just after the arrests:

"It is very likely this group was activated last year after the other group was arrested," Debat said.

A key story in all this was published in the August 7, 2004 edition of the New York Daily News:

Within hours of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan's name being publicized Monday, British police launched lightning raids that netted a dozen suspected Al Qaeda terrorists, including one who was nabbed after a high-speed car chase....

Now British and Pakistani intelligence officials are furious with the Americans for unmasking their super spy - apparently to justify the orange alert - and for naming the other captured terrorist suspects.

Pakistani Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayyat expressed dismay the trap they had hoped would lead to the capture of other top Al Qaeda leaders, possibly even Osama Bin Laden, was sprung too soon.

"The network is still not finished," Hayyat said. It "remains a potent threat to Pakistan, and to civilized humanity."

No duh. Londoners found that out the hard way.

The Newsclip Autopsy site has taken up this story. You may want to consider the research found here.

Our attention is drawn to this significant CBS News story (the true importance of which went largely unrecognized at the time), which contains the following:

A Pakistani security official, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Tuesday that despite failing to capture some al Qaeda suspects after Khan's arrest, the country's security agencies were chasing them and would eventually get them.

The official would not reveal the names or nationalities of the fugitives who evaded arrest.

Ghailani and Khan are still in the custody of Pakistan.

Officials say Ghailani and Khan's computer contained photographs of potential targets in the United States and Britain, including London's Heathrow Airport and underpasses beneath London buildings.

(Emphasis added.)

So we know -- or, at least, we have good reason to believe -- two things:

1. Escaped members of the Khan network eventually carried out the attacks.

2. Those running Khan knew the names of people in that network who escaped capture.

While you chew over those two items, consider the following from The Scotsman:

ONE of the London suicide bombers was allowed to tour the Houses of Parliament as the guest of an MP months after police and intelligence services became aware of his links to another alleged bomb plot, it emerged last night.

Mohammad Sidique Khan, 30, was a guest of the Labour MP Jon Trickett in July 2004, four months after he had been identified by intelligence officials as a "criminal associate" of one of the subjects of a major counter-terrorism operation that had resulted in several arrests.

The extraordinary visit emerged as an Egyptian biochemist who may be linked to the bombers was arrested in Cairo, where he was due to be questioned by Scotland Yard detectives.

The astonishing revelation about the killer's Commons visit throws into question previous assertions that none of the bombers was known to police in connection with terrorist allegations and comes amid growing concerns about how the bombers were allowed to strike.

In other words: "Our" side knew who these guys were. Instead of being rounded up, one terrorist was given a tour of the Houses of Parliament!

(Now that I think of it, this story may pack a "habanero" punch after all...)

Americablog found a very relevant nugget in a September, 2004 exchange with Homeland Security head honcho Tom Ridge. Ridge speaking:

But I know there was the regrettable disclosure of information that British officials would have much preferred to remain confidential, at least during the time of apprehension and the decision-making as to whether or not they should be held and then charged. And I assure you it wasn't part of any public pronouncement relative to raising the threat level from the Department of Homeland Security.

Well...maybe. It all depends on how much you trust Tom Ridge.

At best -- at best, what we have here is another example of BushCo.'s penchant for tattling on our own operatives.

Hats off to Americablog and Newsclip Autopsy for covering his matter. I can add only my own humble speculation -- which may please those of you who hunger for something a bit hotter than a mere jalapeno:

Someone in the Bush administration provided a breadcrumb trail to super-mole Khan in 2004. What if that revelation was not an accident? Khan, it is said, could have helped "our side" capture Bin Laden himself. Do the neocons want Osama to remain free?

(Egads. My crossbreeding experiment may have resulted in the hottest pepper of 'em all!)