Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
COPIES: 1 PAGES: 6
The item identified below has been withdrawn from this file:
FROM: Marcus
TO: Levin, et al
WITHDRAWAL NOTICE
Page 1 of 1
Mike Hurley
From: Warren Bass
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 12:01 PM
To: Team 3
Subject: Tim's view on hearings, from today's clips
"The hearings should not be an interesting graduate school on foreign policy perspectives," agrees commissioner
Roemer. "I've been very frustrated with the type of hearings we've had over the last several months. Instead of
focusing on the principals of the Clinton and Bush administration, instead of focusing on the 9/11 event itself, the
tactical intelligence failures, the political and policy failures, we've spent entirely too much time looking at policy
issues and perspectives. Instead of hearings from [President Bush's national security adviser] Condy Rice and
[former Clinton-era national security advisor] Sandy Berger, we have heard from professors and policy wonks."
1/27/2004
Page 1 of2
Mike Hurley
he's friends with the Prez :-) Seriously, he was Bush's lawyer at Midland.
Jordan is better for Saudi post-9/11 and Bush admin policy. Indyk is the one for Clinton and has a
strong sense of the Middle East, but he would NOT be the one to talk about Saudi cooperation on CT
today in detail, and that may be what the Commissioners care most about (i.e. I think Indyk is the better
choice for substance, but the particular topics of greatest interest may be best answered by Jordan).
William Burns (current Asst Sec, NBA may be a good substitute for Jordan, as he is both a current
official and a regional expert). That said, I like to avoid current USG officials whenever possible, as
their job is to say mush.
MIKE: the above is with regard to who should testify if we can't find Jordan or if we only want Indyk
or Jordan.
Dan
Well, the revised agenda now calls for Jordan OR Indyk. Maybe Graham can find him. I'll work on it.
STEPHANIE L. KAPLAN
9-11 COMMISSION
T (202) 331-1125
F (202) 296-5545
www.9-11commjssjon.gov
—Original Message—
From: Daniel Byman
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 4:56 PM
To: Stephanie Kaplan
Subject: Re: Walker and Jordan interviews
Still haven't heard from Jordan, and this is getting more important, as we'd like him
to testify. Thoughts?
STEPHANIE L. KAPLAN
9-11 COMMISSION
1/8/2004
Page 2 of2
T (202) 331-1125
F (202) 296-5545
www.9-llcommission.gov
Original Message
From: Daniel L. Byman [mailto:dlb32@georgetown.edu]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 7:55 PM
Cc: Stephanie Kaplan
Subject: Re: Walker and Jordan interviews
Original Message
From: Daniel Byman <dlb32@geqrgetown.edu>
Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 1:15 pm
Subject: Walker and Jordan interviews
Stephanie,
What is the status of the Walker and Jordan letters? I've already
contacted Walker's office and set up a meeting (I had thought the
letters were going out a while ago, but apparently they're stuck).
As
far as Jordan, we need to interview him as he may testify in late
Feb
(we also d o n ' t have a phone for him . . . g r r . )
Dan
1/8/2004
TIE: NSC hearing and problems Page 1 of 3
Mike Hurley
Tim ~
For what it's worth, the staff recommendation is to handle the NSC issues in one day. This seems
sufficient and proportionate in relation to the time we also should devote to CIA, DOD, State, and
Justice/FBI. We still stick to our view of the scope of an appropriate staff statement, but I understand
that you have a different view.
And thank you for your help and good questions in the interview today with Secretary Albright
Original Message
From: Timothy Roemer
Sent: Wed 1/7/2004 2:24 PM
To: Philip Zelikow
Cc:
Subject: RE: NSC hearing and problems
Philip-
riiiiip-
My point is that we need more than a day to tell the story of
counterterrorism policy leading up to the events of 9/11. As you have;see seen
in the interviews, this is new information that the Joint Inquiry did not
have access to and therefore did not present. We should not only tell the
story with a specific staff presentation on the NSC role in counterterrorism
policy, but make it a highlight of our public hearings and our report. I
recommend that we task Mike and Warren with writing up this statement that
will subsequently be presented to the public before the witnesses testify.
The J.I. did this very effectively, and Lee has often mentioned his interest
in this type of format. Are you opposed to this approach?
And please send me a copy of the draft to Director Tenet regarding the
access issue. When will this be delivered and what deadline will be
attached? Thank you for your timely response.
Tim
Original Message
From: Philip Zelikow [mailto:pzelikow@9-11 commission.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 10:06 AM
To: Timothy Roemer
Subject: RE: NSC hearing and problems
1/8/2004
j<E: NSC hearing and problems Page 2 of 3
Tim ~
We are working now to schedule the private interviews with Rice and Hadley,
and hope these will be scheduled to occur soon, later this month or in the
beginning of February.
Philip
Original Message
From: Timothy Roemer
Sent: Tue 1/6/2004 4:24 PM
To: Philip Zelikow
Cc:
Subject: NSC hearing and problems
Original Message
From: Philip Zelikow [mailto:pzelikow@9-llcommissiqn,gov]
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 5:20 PM
To: Commissioners
Cc: frontoffice@9-llcommision.gov
Subject: Additional Agenda Items for Commission Meeting on Monday,
Jan 5
Commissioners -
1/8/2004
RE: NSC hearing and problems Page 3 of 3
Philip
1/8/2004
Page 1 of 1
Mike Hurley
Mike,
If asked to choose, I would recommend Jordan over Indyk, even though I think Indyk is far stronger in
general on our topics (Indyk served for eight years, he is a leading specialist on the ME, etc. while
Jordan was Bush's lawyer for his failed company). The reason I would endorse Jordan is that he can
comment credibly on "Saudi ARabia today" more than Indyk, and in the final analysis this question
trumps all others.
Best,
Dan
Philip,
Attached please find our current draft proposal for the late March round of public
hearings (March 22 - 24). This draft incorporates the guidance you offered Team 3
earlier this week.
The draft provides an overview of all three days. Following the overview (the first 2 and
lh pages), there is a more detailed break down of each day's schedule.
Please note:
• Chris Healey coordinated on Day 2's FBI (Freeh and Mueller) panels.
• Also, we provide a taste of the key questions we will want to pose to each panel.
Obviously, these questions need further work/refinement They are not meant to
represent finished thinking at this point But we hope they provide the contours
of how these sessions might shape up.
Mike
1/2/2004
Page 1 of 1
Mike Hurley
Sorry for not getting back ~ out at a meeting. For Indyk and Jordan:
Indyk:
-The Saudi _regime's_ support for radical causes (including direct links to al-Qa'ida, if any)
—Indirect support (through NGOs, by spreading Wahhabism)
-Why does this support occur?
—How much attention was given to Saudi support for radicalism by the USG
—What other issues prevented more attention to Saudi backing of radical causes (Oil, Iraq, etc.)?
-The Saudi regime's CT capacity
Jordan specific
-How much attention did the USG give to Saudi support for radical causes before 9/11?
-How did the Saudis respond to 911?
-What changes occured after the May attacks (and why wasn't 9/11 enough?)
--How well do the Saudis cooperate with the US today?
-The Saudi regime's CT capacity
Left a voice mail for you. Any specific points on the Indyk and Jordan
panels? Key questions?
We're putting the finishing touches on the revised March public hearings
proposal for Philip.
Mike
1/2/2004
Mail:: INBOX: Re: Proposal for Saudi panel Page 1 of 1
http://kinesis.swishmail.conVwebmail/imp/message.php?actionID=148&mailbox=INBOX&b(... 12/6/03