Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: WaPo: U.S. Officials Scrambled to Nab Snowden ("Decision to Force a Foreign Leader’s Plane to Land") [View all]struggle4progress
(126,083 posts)108. You read the article carelessly
... The best play for us is him landing in a third country, Monaco said, according to an official who met with her at the White House ...
is about as close as the article gets to a potentially-defensible quote: it at least puts definite words in the mouth of a definite person, although it doesn't make clear whether the anonymous source "who met with her at the White House" actually ever heard her utter those words or is reporting second- or third-hand
... The official ... added, We were hoping he was going to be stupid enough to get on some kind of airplane, and then have an ally say: Youre in our airspace. Land ...
which has definite words but no indication of who spoke the words, so the We were hoping is rather uninformative. Does We were hoping mean some official working group recommended that the US try to get an ally to demand the plane land, or does it mean "My co-workers and I had a chat about this one evening in a bar after work"?
... U.S. officials thought they saw such an opening on July 2 when Bolivian President Evo Morales, who expressed support for Snowden, left Moscow aboard his presidential aircraft. The decision to divert that plane ended in embarrassment when it was searched in Vienna and Snowden was not aboard ...
falls into completely different territory. It doesn't attribute specific words to a specific named person. It doesn't claim to paraphrase a specific named person. It doesn't allege that someone anonymous said specific words. It doesn't claim to paraphrase someone anonymous. It doesn't indicate who is reporting or reading the thoughts of any alleged officials. Does it mean "Several officials said they had thought they saw such an opening"? Does it mean "An anonymous source said several officials thought"? Does it mean "This reporter inferred that US officials thought"? Note that no one is ever actually quoted as indicating Morales plane was forced down: the language seems entirely that of the reporter
You seem to have no idea what a hardball game "leaking" can be in DC. A sentence like The best play for us is him landing in a third country, Monaco said might contain all manner of Tiger Pits. For example, it is possible that Monaco said something very much like that, in a meeting with various other persons, one of whom is known for over-using the phrase the best play; that the anonymous had a contact who attended the meeting; and that the quote was altered slightly to misdirect attention to the person known for over-using the best play. As far as I know, Monaco may have made this exact statement or a statement very close to it. But that doesn't shed much light: Snowden faces federal charges and is therefore regarded as a fugitive abroad; it is not unusual for the federal government to attempt to obtain such fugitives; about seventeen are returned to the US each week, it seems
I just don't know what the story actually means. And I saw enough vague "officials think" stories in the lead-up to the Iraq war to develop a certain amount of skepticism about such stories
is about as close as the article gets to a potentially-defensible quote: it at least puts definite words in the mouth of a definite person, although it doesn't make clear whether the anonymous source "who met with her at the White House" actually ever heard her utter those words or is reporting second- or third-hand
... The official ... added, We were hoping he was going to be stupid enough to get on some kind of airplane, and then have an ally say: Youre in our airspace. Land ...
which has definite words but no indication of who spoke the words, so the We were hoping is rather uninformative. Does We were hoping mean some official working group recommended that the US try to get an ally to demand the plane land, or does it mean "My co-workers and I had a chat about this one evening in a bar after work"?
... U.S. officials thought they saw such an opening on July 2 when Bolivian President Evo Morales, who expressed support for Snowden, left Moscow aboard his presidential aircraft. The decision to divert that plane ended in embarrassment when it was searched in Vienna and Snowden was not aboard ...
falls into completely different territory. It doesn't attribute specific words to a specific named person. It doesn't claim to paraphrase a specific named person. It doesn't allege that someone anonymous said specific words. It doesn't claim to paraphrase someone anonymous. It doesn't indicate who is reporting or reading the thoughts of any alleged officials. Does it mean "Several officials said they had thought they saw such an opening"? Does it mean "An anonymous source said several officials thought"? Does it mean "This reporter inferred that US officials thought"? Note that no one is ever actually quoted as indicating Morales plane was forced down: the language seems entirely that of the reporter
You seem to have no idea what a hardball game "leaking" can be in DC. A sentence like The best play for us is him landing in a third country, Monaco said might contain all manner of Tiger Pits. For example, it is possible that Monaco said something very much like that, in a meeting with various other persons, one of whom is known for over-using the phrase the best play; that the anonymous had a contact who attended the meeting; and that the quote was altered slightly to misdirect attention to the person known for over-using the best play. As far as I know, Monaco may have made this exact statement or a statement very close to it. But that doesn't shed much light: Snowden faces federal charges and is therefore regarded as a fugitive abroad; it is not unusual for the federal government to attempt to obtain such fugitives; about seventeen are returned to the US each week, it seems
I just don't know what the story actually means. And I saw enough vague "officials think" stories in the lead-up to the Iraq war to develop a certain amount of skepticism about such stories
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
140 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
WaPo: U.S. Officials Scrambled to Nab Snowden ("Decision to Force a Foreign Leader’s Plane to Land") [View all]
Hissyspit
Jun 2014
OP
The "flight plan" map, thank you for posting it, it's clearly due to crab turbulence
Dragonfli
Jun 2014
#111
Did Miller actually provide any new evidence on the Morales plane story?
struggle4progress
Jun 2014
#34
In link, in the statement in the article under discussion in the WaPo, leads
struggle4progress
Jun 2014
#49
''Snowden faces federal charges and is therefore regarded as a fugitive abroad...''
Whisp
Jun 2014
#132
All the denials that the US had anything to do with the reprehensible treatment of
sabrina 1
Jun 2014
#133
Hey, they have been getting away with this "plausible deniability" stuff for a long time now.
bemildred
Jun 2014
#140
Wow, so Snowden outsmarted the White House, Homeland security, the FBI, and the CIA
quinnox
Jun 2014
#6
Posted This In Another Thread... In Case You're Interested... Rendition Aircraft...
WillyT
Jun 2014
#35
naw, it's just the WH being overenthusiastic in undoing what Bush did. or something
MisterP
Jun 2014
#29
It seems to have been the best link Greg Miller could find for his claim
struggle4progress
Jun 2014
#39
We should judge the article on it's actual content, not merely on the fact it appeared in WaPo
struggle4progress
Jun 2014
#110
It's disgraceful how certain parts of the government lie and mislead the public with impunity.
BlueCheese
Jun 2014
#55
I think the new article in the Washingotn post explains why this has come up again.
Vattel
Jun 2014
#79
I think it is ridiculous that anyone here thinks they know what actually happened.
djean111
Jun 2014
#102