Bizarro bomb stories

As you've probably heard, Kos is censoring what he considers off-the-wall conspiracy theories about the London bomb attacks. Some have decried this apparent bowdlerization of political thought. If the internet existed in 1963, would Kos have censored unconventional stories about the JFK assassination?

Other Kossacks high-fived this decision. As one poster put it, "Who wants Kos to become the Little Green Footballs or FreeRepublic of the left? Time to shun the crazies."

God knows I don't want a rep as a left-wing version of those Green Football creepazoids. Politically, I'm a middle-of the road Democrat -- which means you'll see me as either a godless Bolshie (if you're Ann Coulter) or an Eisenhower Republican (if you're a time-traveler from 1974). Although my views are conventional when it comes to the fundamental questions of how-I'd-run-the-zoo, I do allow myself to entertain unconventional thoughts about what the bad guys might be up to.

About eight years ago, the purveyors of '90s-style "paranoid chic" really started to bug the hell out of me, and I decided to shun the company of those mad folk who collect conspiracy theories the way other people collect beer bottles. Even so, I don't mind indulging in speculation (as long as it comes clearly labeled as such), and I find value in contemplating ideas which other Democrats might consider uncomfortable or unthinkable.

As Teddy Roosevelt once said: "My mind is open, but that doesn't mean I'll let geese fly around in there."

All of which means that I do not have a full-fledged, or even a half-fledged, conspiracy theory of the London bombings. The folks who reflexively shouted "Bush did it!" or "Blair did it!" accomplished nothing.

Even so, the event has given rise to a few odd news accounts which we should not quickly shunt aside. Those stories include the following:

The Bush family connection to an Al Qaida site. Shortly after the bombing, a statement taking credit for the attack appeared on a jihadist website, www.al-qal3ah.com. The issuer of the statement was the previously-unknown "Secret Organisation of the al-Qaida Jihad in Europe." Oddly -- tellingly? -- their message misquotes the Koran.

According to a London Guardian investigation, the mysterious U.K.-based owner of this site chose a server located in Houston, Texas -- a server with links to the Bush family.

The server in Houston has intriguing connections. Everyone's Internet was founded by brothers Robert and Roy Marsh in 1998 and by 2002 had an income of more than $30m (now about £17m).

Renowned for his charitable work, Roy Marsh counts among his friends President George Bush's former sister-in-law, Sharon Bush, and the president's navy secretary.

The Guardian does note that the message appeared on a bulletin board. Since these boards are often a free-for-all, one can hardly ask the server to take responsibility for all such messages.

But one can ask why any Al Qaida-linked groups would bother with such a site. Wouldn't criminals of this sort prefer a forum which might better protect technical information about the poster?

Incidentally, the Bushite links to this server were first noted in the British press months ago. This latter story mentions that Marsh's circle of friends also includes fashion model Lauren Bush.

The Guardian notes that the company "cooperates with US law enforcement agencies." The Mail on Sunday reports that "an internet expert who advises the US Government on terrorism said the site will enable them eventually to find the terrorists."

Again: Of all the web sites in the world, why would any member (or would-be member) of Al Qaida choose that one?

Sharon Bush, you will recall, was named as Kitty Kelly's source for the story that George W. Bush did cocaine at Camp David. Sharon, formerly married to the vile Neil, later denied telling the tale; Kelly provided evidence that her account was accurate.

Not another conveniently-timed exercise! In the past, we have discussed Vigilant Guardiann, the anti-terrorism exercise which -- coincidentally -- took place on the very day of the 9/11 attacks. Some have speculated that this training scenario, which tested readiness for an attack, may have provided cover for the real thing.

Now we learn that the very same problem beset the Brits on the day of their terrorist incident. Perhaps the best discussion of this odd "coincidence" can be found on Alex Jones' site. Some will question my reliance on this source -- Jones is one of those conspiracy-theory collectors -- but his article provides solid links to BBC interviews and other mainstream reports.

The key revelation comes via a BBC interview with Peter Power, formerly of Scotland Yard, now the manager of a "crisis management" team involved with British national security:

POWER: At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now.

HOST: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?

POWER: Precisely, and it was about half past nine this morning, we planned this for a company and for obvious reasons I don't want to reveal their name but they're listening and they'll know it. And we had a room full of crisis managers for the first time they'd met and so within five minutes we made a pretty rapid decision that this is the real one and so we went through the correct drills of activating crisis management procedures to jump from slow time to quick time thinking and so on.

I believe it was Fox Mulder who said: "If coincidence is just coincidence, why does it feel so contrived?"

(If the conspiracy-minded Jones still makes you uncomfortable and you want another source for this story, try here.)

Precedent? Alex Jones also reminds us that "Members of Vladimir Putin's FSB were caught planting bombs in a Russian apartment building in 1999 by the Moscow police." This bit of history is quite accurate; I've noted the incident in a previous column.

But does the Russian example provide us with a relevant precedent, or is it completely unrelated to current events? Skeleton key -- or red herring?

You decide.

"Ready when you are, C.B.!" From the Mirror:

But the investigation received a serious setback when it was discovered the CCTV cameras on the bus that blew up were not working so detectives will not get vital images of the bomber.

One senior Yard source said: "It's a big blow and a disappointment. If the cameras had been running we would have had pin-sharp close-up pictures of the person who carried out this atrocity.

"We don't know if the driver forgot to switch them on or if there was a technical problem but there are no images."

The bus had four cameras - one covering people getting on, the second at the exit doors and one on each deck scanning the length of the vehicle.

I'm not among those who has ever agreed with (or even easily tolerated) the theory that a missile hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Even so, I've always wondered why only one video security camera covered the actual strike.

And now we have four -- count 'em: four -- cameras coming down with a mysterious case of the "flu"? Strange days indeed!

Did Israel know? The question has become hopelessly confused. Initial news stories were quite specific: Israeli intelligence did learn of the imminent attacks just before they occurred, and they warned Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who thus stayed clear of harm's way. Several stories mentioned that the Israelis had also passed along a warning to Scotland Yard.

Then we were told that no such warning had occurred, and that the attacks caught Scotland Yard entirely by surprise.

On July 8, I watched cable television coverage of various British officials (including the Mayor of London), and they all seemed quite nervous -- to my eyes, at least -- when fielding questions about the Israeli connection.

Some Israeli accounts confirm the warning (see here). Yet Haaretz denies it.

Stratfor, the intelligence consulting agency widely considered a Mossad asset (or cut-out), now confirms that Israeli spooks had gained advance knowledge, which they shared with the boys at the Yard. Stratfor further claims that the Israelis learned of the plot days -- not minutes -- before the event!

There has been massive confusion over a denial made by the Israelis that the Scotland Yard had warned the Israeli Embassy in London of possible terrorist attacks "minutes before" the first bomb went off July 7. Israel warned London of the attacks a "couple of days ago," but British authorities failed to respond accordingly to deter the attacks, according to an unconfirmed rumor circulating in intelligence circles. While Israel is keeping quiet for the time-being, British Prime Minister Tony Blair soon will be facing the heat for his failure to take action.

Xymphora argues that if Israeli intelligence knew of plans to attack London, the Israeli response would not have been so contradictory and ill-prepared. I consider this argument interesting, but unpersuasive. This amount of smoke indicates fire.

Here's one possible scenario: Israel did offer a warning, but when the Brits could (or would) not prevent the attack, the Israelis decided to "play dumb" in order to help Blair's government save face.

Of course, there are a dozen or so other explanatory scenarios. I'd be delighted to hear yours.