Update from AtlanticWire on their Evogate reporting: both Portugal and Spain allowed overflight

[Recursion]

This is in addition to France's claim that it always allowed overflight for Morales's plane. Which is odd when you factor in France's apology for not doing so. One of those two releases has a problem with it.

Can anyone find a source other than Bolivia itself that the plane was blocked by Spain, France, and/or Portugal, who all deny that?

Also, Bump has an update to his Atlanticwire story today:

According to a statement from Portugal's Ministry of Foreign Affairs excerpted by Negocios Online (and translated by a reporter that contacted us), Portugal and Bolivia went back and forth for two days over how Morales' plane might use Portuguese airspace. On Monday, Portugal told Bolivia it could fly over Portugal but not stop and refuel in Lisbon due to "technical reasons." The Bolivia pilots insisted on including that stop in their flight plan; Portugal again said it wasn't possible. Eventually, the Bolivian plane asked to fly over Portuguese territory to land in Las Palmas, a territory of Spain of the West African coast. That request was granted.

So is the thought now "never believe politicians unless their last name is Morales"?

[cali]

1. lol.

I think you need to quit your act as "honest broker".

[Recursion]

2. I acknowledge I have confirmation bias, regularly

I wish others did.

Also, any substantive response to the reporting there?

[Fumesucker]

6. I've posted at least a couple of OPs about confirmation bias here on GD

So you aren't the only one who is aware of that human failing.

[ProSense]

8. First post, personal attack. n/t

[Poll_Blind]

34. +1

Was looking for the right words. You beat me to it.

PB

[djean111]

3. I do not think we proles will ever really know what happened.

All the conjecture reminds me of that committee of blind people describing an elephant.
Really, there is no compelling reason to believe ANY of the "official" statements, especially when we know the PTB can lie at will and when needed, with impunity.
Waste of time, IMO.

[burnodo]

4. This reporting?

" but declined Bolivia's request for a refuelling stop in Lisbon due to unspecified technical reasons."

So refueling for the trip across the Atlantic was denied due to unspecified technical reasons. Really? Unspecified? Technical? Really?

[ProSense]

7. Yes, because

This reporting?

" but declined Bolivia's request for a refuelling stop in Lisbon due to unspecified technical reasons."

So refueling for the trip across the Atlantic was denied due to unspecified technical reasons. Really? Unspecified? Technical? Really?

...it states that the two countries went "back and forth for two days" and that determination was made "on Monday."

That is before the incident took place.

[burnodo]

10. Back and forth?

On what, technical problems?

[ProSense]

11. You'll have to ask them. n/t

[Recursion]

12. Length of runway, fuel aperture, security setup, blah blah blah

There's a ton of reasons heads of state have to use this rather than that airstrip.

[burnodo]

17. So one of this was planned in advance?

If Morales had planned on landing in Lisbon, don't you think they should have informed him before he was low on fuel?

[Recursion]

20. He wasn't "low on fuel"; the gauge broke

But he did need to refuel at some point (he ended up using the Canaries or whatever it was).

It sounds like they were negotiating the clearances a week out or so, which sounds about normal to me.

[burnodo]

25. Your article said unspecified technical reasons were the reason

Morales couldn't land

[Recursion]

26. That was the reason Portugal denied him a landing there a week ago

When you're planning a head of state's flight, you get landing clearances several days in advance. Not all airports are technically capable of meeting your mechanical and security needs at all times. And, for that matter, sometimes host governments use that as an excuse to annoy you.

[CakeGrrl]

5. The thought now is

"It doesn't matter what any of them say. Obama the Desperate Despot is behind this, because you can't trust ANYTHING this U.S. government says!"

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

9. spreading this disinfo far and wide, eh?

[Recursion]

13. Got an actual response? (nt)

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

14. yeah, well I hate to prejudge before all the truthy facts are in

[randome]

18. Is that Paul Revere?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

22. I don't think it's fair to condem a whole program due to a single slip up

Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of the news that Tyranny is coming!

[randome]

31. The quote is priceless, of course.

But I hope you're not equating nuclear devastation with phone record metadata.

This is an example of nuclear devastation.


And this is an example of phone record metatdata.


Can you spot the difference between the two? Okay, I'm being unnecessarily snarky. Sorry, bye!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[flamingdem]

27. LOL

[Recursion]

33. Bwah

[ProSense]

19. No one wants to admit

that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the reporting.

From the BBC piece posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023162127

Austrian officials said the airport authorities had searched the plane, but with Mr Morales's permission.

But the Bolivian government denied any search had taken place.

Was President Morales' plane searched or not?

[dbackjon]

15. It is funny how so many take the word of an anti-American leader as Gospel

[randome]

28. It's 'funny' how so many take anyone's word in this or the surrounding mess.

What ever happened to calm deliberation? Waiting for the facts? You know, the things liberals do so much better than conservatives.

The last few days, DU has been an education.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[dbackjon]

45. Agreed - it is part of the great obsession to judge immediately

[randome]

16. This post does not measure down to current DU standards.

So do you think Morales misinterpreted events because he felt ignored or something?

Venezuela being angry at Spain as part of this doesn't make sense if Spain is claiming they did not restrict airspace.

So many conflicting reports. A genuine kerfuffle if ever there was one.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Recursion]

29. Never attribute to malevolence

what you can attribute to jetlag and poor staff work.

[randome]

35. Wise words.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Cali_Democrat]

21. The thought is now also: don't post pictures of Morales or you're racist

Yep. I posted a picture of Morales withe Austrian President and I was essentially called a racist.



OK...this is getting a little weird. How long before we see pictures of Morales with the word "hero"?

[randome]

24. Here comes Morales to the rescue with a hair piece full of tyranny.

Or something like that.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Benton D Struckcheon]

23. I haven't said a word about this one yet,

because

1. Morales has a known history re the US, and does these sorts of things to satisfy his political base in Bolivia. The usual things a politician does, you know, even the sainted leftist ones from Latin America.

2. Obama has a known history re Latin America at this point, of being condescending to the leftist side. To some extent he has been unduly provoked by them - Venezuela cozies up to Iran, for instance, with whom we have no relations for the very good reason they sacked our embassy and took the staff hostage and have never apologized for it, which is, you know, or could easily be construed as, an act of war, yet a large contingent on DU seems to positively revel in anything Iran does that is meant to provoke the US, which I find seriously shameful behavior on their part - but he has gone farther in responding to these stupid provocations by insignificant countries than he needs to in ways that are seriously embarrassing. Harming our relations with Brazil, for instance, which is in fact a significant country, over anything Morales does is just a ridiculous own goal, as the British like to say, but Rousseff is going to defend Morales because she's pretty obviously obligated to, and simply because if it really is true this plane was detained for the reasons stated it's a serious slap in Latin America's face. Obama needs to avoid this kind of gratuitous damage to our relations with them, so I'm hoping none of what Morales says is true. Hopeful, but not optimistic this will turn out to be the case.

So, given all that, I'll wait. It's amusing to see the two sides on DU square off on this as if all the facts are known. They aren't. It would be best if everyone would maintain their cool and let all the facts come out. I have a feeling when all is said and done Morales is going to look pretty inane, but then so might Obama. It wouldn't be the first time for either of them when it comes to relations between the US and Latin America.

[Fumesucker]

30. You are aware that the US overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953?

Overthrew it in order to install a right wing despot, the Shah, that the population roundly hated.

Most Americans seem blissfully unaware of the previous history before 1979 between Iran and the USA.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

37. So what?

Carter was in office in 1979. There was exactly zero reason for the Ayatollah Khomeini (for whom I have no respect whatsoever, having killed Iran's chance for a turn to democracy with his religious fanaticism) to think Carter, of all people, was going to continue that sort of relationship. It was groundless.

[Fumesucker]

38. And Khomeini is dead for years now

You went back to 1979 to show how Americans should hate Iran, 1953 was closer to 1979 than 1979 is to today, 26 years versus 34 years and what the US did to Iran in 1953 was far worse and more painful than what Iran did to the US 26 years later.

It was the US that killed an actual living breathing democracy in Iran in the first place and you want to blame Khomeini?

[Benton D Struckcheon]

40. Right.

Carter, among other things, recognized the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. If Khomeini weren't such a fanatic, he'd have recognized that Carter was not about to continue the policies of his predecessors. Their actions had the direct effect, in this country, of electing Reagan, from whom they got their reward in the Iran-Contra treason.
That government Khomeini installed is still governing Iran. So no, the US has no reason to be friendly towards them. Their first act was basically an act of war, they've never apologized for it or acknowledged in any way that it was wrong. They do have a new President now who looks like he might be a reasonable person, but even if he is, the Presidency over there has less power than whichever Ayatollah is running the show anyway, which is how that nutcase Khomeini set it up. He had zero interest in democracy.
Making excuses for these contemptible people is shameful.

[Fumesucker]

41. If the 1979 embassy takeover was an act of war then what was the overthrow of a government?

Clearly the US initiated the state of war between the two peoples.

Making excuses for these contemptible people is shameful.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

43. The difference is that was under Eisenhower.

Name me one government anywhere in the world Carter overthrew. We have elections to change out these governments and therefore change these policies.
Don't bother answering, I won't see it. I'm tired of this kind of idiotic anti-American drivel.

[Fumesucker]

44. But as you pointed out in the case of Iran, it's the same government in the US

It's not anti-American to point out facts and truth.

FWIW I'm a vet and I'm often ashamed of the way the country I served in uniform has acted.

[dbackjon]

46. Yet you continue your anti-American diatribes

There are many instances where BOTH sides are wrong.

[Fumesucker]

50. Indeed

But the poster I was chatting with had no intention of admitting that fact, everything bad was the fault of the Iranians, I was trying to give the counterbalancing view.

I grew up force fed jingoism, it took me a bit longer to shed it than the religion I also grew up with but shed it I did.

And it was the actions of the American government that caused my attitude, just like it was the remarkably hypocritical actions of the Christians I was surrounded by that caused me to start the process of losing my religion.

[flamingdem]

32. Reasonable post. I think this will go away when the facts

are clarified and the need to utilize the incident to cover incompetence or be vague to cover incompetence goes away.

[socialist_n_TN]

36. Since all the facts aren't known...

(and really might not EVER be known), it comes down to who do you believe. Who has the most credibility in this particular situation and which scenario is the most credible?

The United States has had problems Morales before. He's something of a socialist, consequently he's an anathema to the neo-liberal policies of the Obama administration. He also has no problems calling out the USA when he feels it's deserved. And then there's wikileaks and Assange and his support of same. Ditto Snowden. There's two PUBLIC versions of events from France. Contradictory versions.

I don't think it's a stretch to see a scenario where the CIA was SURE that Snowden was on Morale's plane and the US intervened with the Euro countries on the plane's route home to deny access to their airspace. Apparently, the sources for this intel were wrong and this flap ensued.

Or you can believe the USA and these other USA client states and say that Morales is lying. As said above, since we'll probably never know (short of another leaker , it'll depend on your worldview as to which scenario is most believable to you.

[dbackjon]

47. Morales, like Chavez before him

Has never resisted an opportunity to make the United States look bad.

I think it is LESS of a stretch to see this all as a ploy by Morales to try to embarass the US.

[treestar]

39. Yes. It is funny how all politicians are corrupt

until they are doing something that fits a pre-conceived agenda.

[msanthrope]

42. I think the French apologized, and were right to do so--the plane was having technical difficulties,

they may not have prioritized the landing, misunderstanding what was going on. I wouldn't assume malice before I ruled out incompetence.

[sibelian]

48. .

Daily "DiePresse" reported that the USA demanded Snowden's extradiction from Austrian authorities

US Requested that Vienna Extradite Snowden

03.07.2013 | 21:28 | HELMAR DUMBS UND CHRISTIAN ULTSCH (Die Presse)

Bolivian President Morales was forced to land in Vienna. NSA whistleblower Snowden was suspected to be on his jet. In a telephone conversation with the Foreign Office, the U.S. ambassador demanded they extradite him.

...

Here's the crucial section:

Sie landete gegen 23 Uhr. Kurz danach ging im Wiener Außenamt ein dringlicher Anruf ein. Am anderen Ende der Leitung: US-Botschafter William Eacho. Wie "Die Presse" erfuhr, behauptete er mit großer Bestimmtheit, dass Edward Snowden an Bord sei, der von den USA gesuchte Aufdecker jüngster Abhörskandale. Eacho habe auf eine diplomatische Note verwiesen, in der die USA die Auslieferung Snowdens verlangten.

Translated:

It landed about 11 pm. Shortly after that, the Vienna foreign department received a phone call. The caller was the US embassador William Echo. "Die Presse" learned that he claimed with strong firmness that Edward Snowden was onboard, the whistleblower of the recent surveillance scandals. Eacho referred to a diplomatic note requesting Snowden's extradition.


http://diepresse.com/home/politik/aussenpolitik/1426275/USA-verlangten-von-Wien-Snowdens-Auslieferung?_vl_backlink=/home/politik/aussenpolitik/1416110/index.do&direct=1416110

[flamingdem]

49. As I noted this reference is only cited here, as in

it's a complete fabrication.

[Recursion]

52. Die Presse is a RW Catholic daily

Haider-type stuff

[Scurrilous]

51. K & R