The Morning Report
San Diego news and info
you need to take on the day.
The response from Arnold Punaro, an executive vice president for the defense and intelligence contractor, says:
The article extends far beyond the topics covered in the list of questions submitted to SAIC. It appears that the authors were not interested in our input because they also ignored the bulk of the information that we submitted in our written responses. At the outset, the editors of Vanity Fair appear to have found every negative press article and litigation matter involving SAIC during its 38 year existence. In their search for the negative, the authors of the article contacted anyone who might have something negative to say about SAIC and went on to quote terminated employees, litigants and contingent fee lawyers as if their word was the final authority. No attempt was made to place these matters into context or to achieve a balanced perspective. Further, the article ignores substantial publicly available information supportive of the company. The result is an article lacking in credibility.
And it addresses the link the story tries to draw between the company and the inception of the second Iraq war:
The article preposterously suggests (i.e., “some might argue”) that SAIC was involved in instigating the Iraq war. It’s absurd to suggest that, by anticipating the rise of global terror networks and assisting the United States in defending itself against such threats, SAIC is somehow responsible for instigating the Iraq war. The run-up to the war is one of the most examined and investigated periods in American history; any such suggestion concerning SAIC is absurd and totally lacking in factual foundation.