Mr Kirkland alleges that the article was ‘plagued with inaccuracies’, but does not specify any. His interview with me was tape-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and he was quoted adequately at relevant places in the published article.
Mr Kirkland’s insistence that Ambassador Hartwick’s recall from Delhi was of a ‘routine nature’ was reflected in the article, which included a quote from him on the subject. Alongside, Lockheed Martin spokesperson Jeffrey Adams, was also quoted, divulging that no replacement had yet been found for Ambassador Hartwick, a circumstance that hardly suggested a ‘routine’ replacement, planned months in advance.
Interestingly, Mr Kirkland’s letter glosses over the major issue addressed in the article: His company’s possession of two folders relating to India’s Ministry of Defence that inexplicably reached Lockheed Martin’s headquarters. Mr Kirkland accepted during the interview — and has been quoted accordingly in the article — that Lockheed Martin had referred back to the Indian Government about those two reports. While declining to divulge the contents of those folders, he claimed that Lockheed Martin was unclear how they were obtained.
Given the circumstances and the interview with Mr Kirkland, I stand by my story.