Citizen G'kar: Musings on Earth

July 15, 2005

Bush May Have Indirect Responsibility for the London Bombing

As is typical of the Bush/Rove administration, publicity is the most important, substance is a secondary consideration. To win the election, the Bush Administration leaked details to justify their increasing the terror alert that led to the identification of an Al Qaeda captive who was cooperating and of great value to an investigation by Britain's MI5 and Pakistani intelligence about an Al Qaeda Pakistan-London connection. This effectively ended the value of the capture. Bush should have LOST the election over this stupid move, but again, people weren't paying attention. And mainstream media is slow on the uptake.
AMERICAblog
ABC News just reported that the British authorities say they have evidence that the London attacks last week were an operation planned by Al Qaeda for the last two years. This was an operation the Brits thought they caught and stopped in time, but they were wrong. The piece of the puzzle ABC missed is that this is an operation the Bush administration helped botch last year.


I.e., last year Bush botched the effort to thwart the London subway attacks.


1. The London bombers, per ABC, are connected to an Al Qaeda plot planned two years ago in Lahore, Pakistan.


2. Pakistani authorities recovered the laptop of a captured Al Qaeda leader, Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan, on July 13, 2004. On that laptop, they found plans for a coordinated series of attacks on the London subway. According to an expert interviewed by ABC, "there is absolutely no doubt that Khan was part of a worldwide Al Qaeda operation, not just in the United States but also in Great Britain and throughout the west."


Also important, but not reported by ABC this evening, after his arrest Khan started working for our side - sending emails to his other Al Qaeda buddies, working as our mole.


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.


Because the US let the cat out of the bag, the media got a hold of Khan's name and published the fact that he had been captured - his Al Qaeda contacts thus found out their "buddy" was actually a mole, and they fled. Our sole source inside Al Qaeda was destroyed. As a result, the Brits had to have a high speed chase to catch some of Khan's Al Qaeda associates as they fled, and, according to press reports, the Brits and Pakistanis both fear that some slipped away.


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.

6 comments:

DaddyCool said...

The mainstream media also barely covered the deaths of all of the children in the car bombing in Iraq this week - were the deaths in London worth 100-times the coverage?

Dave Marco said...

Most of the Brits were white. The children were Arab Shiites afterall. Sparking prejudice is a Bush Administration speciality. Americans in power and their supporters don't give a damn about Muslims of any stripe.

MataHarley said...

Let me get this straight, Dave.
MSM relentlessly demands to know "why" terror alerts are raised everytime they change.
If the admin doesn't answer, they whine profusively - condemning the Homeland Security Dept for being vague and deliberately refusing to keep citizens fully informed.
If they do answer, it's the admin's fault for "giving too much information".
Reading your opinions, it becomes clear no WH admin will ever win. Condemned if they don't talk, condemned if they do.
The facts are, in the information age, news travels fast, and to all corners of the world. Still living in the old school mentality of "next day's headlines" to the locals, the MSM ignores the consequences of their snooping and endangers national security by publishing data they should not purely for personal gains, famed scoops and ratings. Had the Battle of Normandy happened in this era, today's media would have already sought out leaks, forecast details and piled on speculation - alerting our enemies prior to landing.
So I ask you, is it at all possible that you can see any media responsibility in all this? Or is it just plain blind Bush hatred that drives your "Bush may be responsible" mentality?
You might want to stop muddying the grey matter in your mind. It's really more simple than you think. Those that are "responsible" for the London bombings are those that planned and executed the event. Period.
Those that are responsible for giving out too much information for our enemies to see and use against us - from military strategies to intel - are the media who place ratings and personal interests above national interests. Period.
BTW, your comment "Sparking prejudice is a Republican speciality" shows you excel in understanding and demonstrating "prejudice". However in keeping with your pattern of thought that it's always someone elses fault, your preconceived notions must not be your fault.

Dave Marco said...

Good response!
I'm not one who advocates willy nilly releasing "active" intelligence. There is a place for secrecy. Claiming credit for an important capture during a tight election campaign is not a good reason to break secrecy when there is much to be gained from keeping it quiet.
As for media responsibility in this issue, I see none at all. I condemn Novak for outing Plame. But when an Administration official openly reports a capture of an important Al Qaeda source, any media source would assume that it must be safe to report.
As for the comment about "Republican" specialty of sparking prejudice, your point is well taken. I will edit it to say "Bush Administration".

MataHarley said...

And a gracious response on your part, Dave.
Actually I did a little archival news searching. Interesting uncoverings. The report of the Khan capture at the airport, including his name, was provided to the press by Pakistan's Interior Minister, Faisal Saleh Hayat a few days after.
By the 3rd of August, CNN and other MSM were touting the name in their coverage. By the 4th, Captain's Quarters was on it and security officials were reporting he was involved with planning assaults on Heathrow previously, and wanted by the US.
Apparently the press didn't have to dig hard to get a name now, did they? The cat left the bag, courtesy of Pakistani officials. You'll notice this is a regular habit for them with other captures - quick with the names, and include the FBI "numbers" too. Out of our hands. Khan's capture was a Pakistani operation, and not a US run operation. We deal with what we get, ya know.
Oddly enough, when we nabbed two close Zarqawi operators and the "beheader's" personal laptop in April of this year, No names provided with that report. And I don't see the MSM working to expose the names either. That *was* a US operation. An interesting contrast in post laptop/capture behavior, don't you think.
Common sense would dictate that the simple act of naming names would destroy any ability to convert a captured source - if possible - to a double agent. Therefore specifics such as names should be a MSM "no man's land", unless volunteered by security officials. And even exposure of his name from officials may be part of a larger game plan. Perhaps they want to use him as bait, neh? So much we don't know about under the scenes. And that is appropriate for intel.
On the other hand, reporting captures of AQ sources is well within info that *should* be passed along. The peanut gallery needs some touch downs now and then to keep their spirits high. And we sure don't get much good news from MSM because - frankly - good news doesn't sell.
Moving on to the Plame Blame game, I think most of us agree that an investigation to find out if there was indeed a leak of proprietary intel, endangerment of agents, then punishment of those involved, is warranted. Having all confidentiality waivers signed should prevent reporters hiding behind undisclosed, secret sources and keep the investigation more viable and upfront. Personally, I'll wait the game out to see exactly what has transpired before I ask for heads to roll.
So we shall agree to disagree on many points. But with civility - just like grownups, yes? BestMata

Dave Marco said...

Actually, I posted on the CNN report of Aug. 9th that still claimed the source of the leak was the Administration. With a little digging I found there were quite few people convinced the sourse of the leak was an American official, including Condoleezza Rice and Juan Cole. I appreciate your presenting an opportunity for clarification.
However, I would agree with Cole's point that the US was indirectly responsible for the leak. Raising the risk gives security officials no discernable advantage, it just protects the Administration from criticism and served them well during the election.