He could easily have said "No comment" or "that's classified" or evaded, rather than lie about it.
Here's an example:
Q General, can you came the three ships that are going to be involved in this?
GEN. CARTWRIGHT: Prefer prefer not to.
Q Are they the Curtis Wilbur, the Fitzgerald and the Shiloh? (Laughter.)
GEN. CARTWRIGHT: (Chuckles.) Prefer not to.
Q Would I be wrong if I said it was the Curtis Wilbur, the Fitzgerald and the Shiloh?
GEN. CARTWRIGHT: Questions? (Laughter.)
Here's another example:
Q My other question is, can you describe what this satellite did, what it was, what its purpose was? Why was it up there?
GEN. CARTWRIGHT: It was a test bird launched by the National Reconnaissance Office. I would direct you towards them. That's as much as I can go into it.
Q The reason why I ask is because, as you say, you've read the blogs and you've read the comments about the classified material aboard. So presumably there is some high-level classified information technology on the satellite.
GEN. CARTWRIGHT: I'll direct you to the National Reconnaissance Office.
So if there's something General Cartwright doesn't want to tell us, he is perfectly capable of clamming up.
What he said about the Ice Station Zebra scenario (that is, the satellite being too secret to allow anybody else to lay hands upon it) was this:
Q General, would there be no danger if you didn't do this and this came down on land and somebody else got to it first and it landed in -- you know, somewhere in China, if -- this -- that this would be of no intelligence value to the country that --
GEN. CARTWRIGHT: I mean, our assessment is high probability that it would not be of any intelligence value. Just the heating, the destruction that occurs on the reentry would leave it in a state that -- you know, other than some rare unforecast happenstance, this would not be of intelligence value.
Q But is that rare possibility, that maybe remote possibility -- is that part of the calculation here?
GEN. CARTWRIGHT: No.
Q It's not? (Off mike) --
GEN. CARTWRIGHT: It would not change. It is the hydrazine that makes this different. Now, I mean, I've read the blog space on this, and I understand. But it is hydrazine that we are looking at. That is the only thing that breaks it out and is worthy of taking extraordinary measures.
I hesitate to go up against your keenly-trained rhetorical skills, but why would he choose to deny the claim, rather than evade the question, if the denial is false?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-02-18 01:41 pm (UTC)Here's an example:
Q General, can you came the three ships that are going to be involved in this?
GEN. CARTWRIGHT: Prefer prefer not to.
Q Are they the Curtis Wilbur, the Fitzgerald and the Shiloh? (Laughter.)
GEN. CARTWRIGHT: (Chuckles.) Prefer not to.
Q Would I be wrong if I said it was the Curtis Wilbur, the Fitzgerald and the Shiloh?
GEN. CARTWRIGHT: Questions? (Laughter.)
Here's another example:
Q My other question is, can you describe what this satellite did, what it was, what its purpose was? Why was it up there?
GEN. CARTWRIGHT: It was a test bird launched by the National Reconnaissance Office. I would direct you towards them. That's as much as I can go into it.
Q The reason why I ask is because, as you say, you've read the blogs and you've read the comments about the classified material aboard. So presumably there is some high-level classified information technology on the satellite.
GEN. CARTWRIGHT: I'll direct you to the National Reconnaissance Office.
So if there's something General Cartwright doesn't want to tell us, he is perfectly capable of clamming up.
What he said about the Ice Station Zebra scenario (that is, the satellite being too secret to allow anybody else to lay hands upon it) was this:
Q General, would there be no danger if you didn't do this and this came down on land and somebody else got to it first and it landed in -- you know, somewhere in China, if -- this -- that this would be of no intelligence value to the country that --
GEN. CARTWRIGHT: I mean, our assessment is high probability that it would not be of any intelligence value. Just the heating, the destruction that occurs on the reentry would leave it in a state that -- you know, other than some rare unforecast happenstance, this would not be of intelligence value.
Q But is that rare possibility, that maybe remote possibility -- is that part of the calculation here?
GEN. CARTWRIGHT: No.
Q It's not? (Off mike) --
GEN. CARTWRIGHT: It would not change. It is the hydrazine that makes this different. Now, I mean, I've read the blog space on this, and I understand. But it is hydrazine that we are looking at. That is the only thing that breaks it out and is worthy of taking extraordinary measures.
I hesitate to go up against your keenly-trained rhetorical skills, but why would he choose to deny the claim, rather than evade the question, if the denial is false?