T3 B6 Public Hearings Fdr- Withdrawal Notice And Emails Re Hearing Topics- Witnesses- Process 066

WITHDRAWAL NOTICE RG: 148 Exposition, Anniversary, and Memorial Commissions SERIES: Team 3, 9/11 Commission NND PROJECT NUMBER:

52100

FOIA CASE NUMBER: 31107

WITHDRAWAL DATE: 12/03/2008

BOX: 00002

FOLDER: 0001

COPIES: 1 PAGES:

TAB: 72

DOC ID: 31207960

6

The item identified below has been withdrawn from this file: FOLDER TITLE: Public Hearings DOCUMENT DATE: 02/20/2004

DOCUMENT TYPE: E-Mail Printout/fProfs Notes)

FROM: Marcus TO: Levin, et al SUBJECT:

RE: DCI TESTIMONY AT MARCH HEARING

This document has been withdrawn for the following reason(s): 9/11 Closed by Statute

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 From:

Daniel Byman

Sent:

Thursday, January 08, 2004 5:13 PM

To:

Stephanie Kaplan

Cc:

Mike Hurley

Subject: Jordan testify, or Indyk

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

Stephanie Kaplan wrote: Well, the revised agenda now calls for Jordan OR Indyk. Maybe Graham can find him. I'll work on it. Who is he friends with? 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 Kaplan wrote: A belated reply, but yes, they went out early last week. 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:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 7:55 PM Cc: Stephanie Kaplan Subject: Re: Walker and Jordan interviews Just to confirm (read nag), these have gone out, no? Original Message From: Daniel Byman 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 From:

Philip Zelikow

Sent:

Wednesday, January 07, 2004 10:35 PM

To:

Timothy Roemer

Subject: RE: NSC hearing and problems

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. I believe the meeting with the Judge is set to occur on Thursday. 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 PhilipriiiiipMy point is that we need more than a day to tell the story of seen counterterrorism policy leading up to the events of 9/11. As you have;see 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? On another note, what progress have we made since our meeting in asking for an extension on our deadline? Has Lee met with the Judge yet? What did the White House say in response to our request? This must be a higher priority for us to move on and resolve. 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 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. Then- appearance at a public hearing would be in March and April, respectively, if they accept our invitations. If they do not, the Commission will need to decide how to proceed, as we discussed. In part as a response to your well-founded interest in this topic, we do currently plan to set aside a day of hearings in March to explore national management of counterterrorism policy by the NSC, to include the participation of the responsible officials from the Clinton and Bush administrations. Although we are likely to have a staff statement of some kind about the course of counterterrorism policy, we are not sure whether the NSC role should be separated in such a staff statement from the broader policy story that includes the performance of other agencies. Philip

Original Message From: Timothy Roemer Sent: Tue 1/6/2004 4:24 PM To: Philip Zelikow Cc:

Subject: NSC hearing and problems

Philip-1 continue to be very concerned about the inability to confirm our witnesses(Dr. Rice and Stete Hadley) and specifically outline the format for our N.S.C. hearing. As you have seen in our extensive interviews with Steinberg and Clarke, this is a very interesting story and it takes time to tell it. We have not yet interviewed enough people to tell the Bush Administration story, yet the documents seem to present a curious and revealing 9 months. I would like you and Mike Hurley, with Warren Bass assisting, to provide me (and the Commission)with an outline of how we are organizing this hearing; public/closed hearings, confirmed and invited witnesses, format, short synopsis of a staff statement read before the hearing, etc...Can you get this for me by January 26th? I will talk to Mike and Warren as well. Thanks. Tim Original Message From: Philip Zelikow [mailto:pzelikow@9-llcommissiqn,gov] Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 5:20 PM To: Commissioners Cc: [email protected] Subject: Additional Agenda Items for Commission Meeting on Monday, Jan 5 Commissioners Commissioner Ben-Veniste has asked that two further items be placed on the agenda for discussion at our Monday meeting. These would be: — Interim Report from the PDB Review Team

1/8/2004

Page 2 of 3

RE: NSC hearing and problems — Commission Policy on Recusals Philip

1/8/2004

Page 3 of 3

Page 1 of 1

Mike Hurley From:

Daniel Byman

Sent:

Friday, January 02, 2004 4:31 PM

To:

Mike Hurley

Subject: Re: Proposal for Late March Public Hearings

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 Mike Hurley wrote: 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: • To get everything we hope to accomplish/cover on the first day, we suggest devoting the morning to safehavens, and reserving the afternoon for two panels: Clinton foreign and defense policy; and Bush foreign and defense policy. • 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 From:

Daniel Byman

Sent:

Friday, January 02, 2004 2:16 PM

To:

Mike Hurley

Subject: Re: Dan

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 Mike Hurley wrote: 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

28.60MB /476.84MB (6.00%) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 16:29:36 -0500 From: Daniel Byman <^ To: Mike Hurley <[email protected]>^ Subject: Re: Proposal for Saudi panel Mike,

I don't have a magic formula, but I wouldn't be a professor if I didn't have some thoughts. There are several things to think about when identifying witnesses: 1. Credibility and eloquence (of course) 2. contrast (we don't want people saying the same thing; contrast can be chronological (Clinton v. Bush) or substantive (Saudis are great v. they suck). Ideally, you have both. 3. People who won't hide behind classification. Cofer won't. Nor will Clarke. Berger is pretty good on this. Don't know about Rice/Had! ey. 4. Clarke is in some ways perfect -- he's articulate, has a great memory, was at the center of attention, was both a Republican and Democrat (Bush I, Clinton, Bush II) , and is (ahem) not always shy about sensitive issues. The danger is that he is a "spinner," and we need to make sure he is balanced by someone, would Cofer work for this? Downing (the General, Wayne) would in theory be ideal, but he's not as sharp) . To be honest, I like the list for the most part. I'm not sure I see the value of the State Dept types, but that's just my bias. Dan Mike Hurley wrote: >Hi Dan: > >Thanks. I thought Philip's answer was a good one, too. I'm in a couple >of interviews today as you know. But could use your thoughts on the >other public hearings of principals. The question: how do we structure >good and useful public hearings and avoid the problem of classified >questioning etc. > i ke

> ----- original Message ---->From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 8:30 AM

>To: Mike Hurley >Subject: Fwd: RE: Proposal for Saudi panel > >Mi ke , >

>This is a good sign. Let me know what you want for the >overall "proposal (the language in the email may be sufficient), and >I'll write it up. > >Dan

http://kinesis.swishmail.conVwebmail/imp/message.php?actionID=148&mailbox=INBOX&b(... 12/6/03