T3 B9 David Tucker - Tim Naftali 2 of 2 FDR - Emails - Letters - Withdrawal Notices (See SD B3 Interviews FDR For Earlier Naftali Invitation Letters)

Mail:: INBOX: Changes to Proposed Agreement with Tim Naftali and David Tucker Page 1 of 1
84.01 MB / 476.84MB (17.62%)

Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:04:44 -0400
From: "" <mhurley@9-11commission.gov>^
To: "" <frontoffice@9-11commission.gov>4|,"" <tshycoff@9-11commission.gov>4P
Cc: "" <wbass@9-11commission.gov>^,"" <dlb32@georgetown.edu>^,"" <mhurley@9-11commission.gov>^l
Subject: Changes to Proposed Agreement with Tim Naftali and David Tucker
As front office colleagues are aware, Philip approved the task descriptions for
scholars Tim Naftali and David Tucker. Each will write a monograph on U.S.
counterterrorism Policy: Naftali covering the period 1968 to January 1993; and
Tucker from 1985 to 1998.
Per previous email notes, our view is that they will be "contractors", and they
will not have access to sensitive information.
Philip agreed to compensate each of them a fee-for-task of $15,000 for their

work.
In discussing the specific terms of the proposal, however, both Naftali and
Tucker thought the fee was somewhat low for what they are being asked to do.
Each estimates that their respective research and writing will require upwards
of 400 hours. And they point out that the going government rate for this kind
of work is $65 per hour.
I think that Naftali and Tucker make defensible a case for a somewhat higher
fee, and suggest that we agree to pay each of them $20,000.
In addition, each pointed out that it will be essential to their work to

conduct research at various presidential libraries around the country, and that
therefore they will incur travel and lodging expenses. We had not thought
about this until now, but the request is reasonable, that is, we concur that
the ability to review presidential documents is critical to the thorough
research we want Tucker and Naftali to do.
I propose that we budget $5,000 for each of them for travel-related expenses.
We should make clear to them in the letter memorializing the terms of our
agreement that they will need to submit to the Commission ticket and hotel
receipts and any other receipts that government regulations require for
documenting work-related travel.
For Chris Kojm: Pending Philip's decision on this, for budget-tracking

purposes, please note the above proposed addition to the fee-for-task, and the
proposed travel budget for each.
Decisions for Philip:
1} Request approval to increase to $20,000 each the fee-for-task the

Commission will pay to Tim Naftali and to David Tucker for their work.
2) Request approval to budget travel funds of $5,000 each for Naftali

and Tucker.
Thanks,
Mike
http://kmesis.swishmail.com./webmail/imp/message.php?Horde:=6e3f79a9f02ffce501efa47a9... 8/18/03
Mail:: INBOX: RE: Conversation with Tim Naftali and Request for Approval of Certain ... Page 1 of 1
79.30MB / 476.84MB (16.63%)

Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:32:29 -0400
From: Philip Zelikow <pzelikow@9-11 commission.gov>4P
To: "" <mhurley@9-11commission.gov>#
Reply-to: "" <pzelikow@9-11 commission.gov>4?
Subject: RE: Conversation with Tim Naftali and Request for Approval of Certain Points
Mike --
I read your note. Well done. I approve your recommendation on how to

proceed.
Philip
Original Message
From: mhurley@9-llcoiranission.gov [mailto:mhurley@9-llcommission.gov]
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 3:24 PM
To: pzelikow@9-llcommission.gov
Subject: Conversation with Tim Naftali and Request for Approval of
Certain Points
Philip,
I had a long and extremely pleasant telephone conversation with Tim

Naftali
this morning. Details and my request for your approval of a couple of
issues
that came up are in the attachment.
Thanks,
Mike
http://kinesis.swishmail.com./webmail/imp/message.php?Horde=6e3f79a9f02ffce501efa47a9... 8/15/03
Philip:
I'm sending this email only to you because I would like to

have your approval on a couple of matters before I raise
those matters with the entire Front Office, for reasons I
will make clear below.
I had a long and most agreeable telephone conversation with

Tim Naftali this morning. So that you know, the reason we
have not yet sent out the writing task descriptions (which
you approved last week) to Tucker and Naftali is that the
admin/contractual language is still being worked out. Tracy
Shycoff and I exchanged emails on this yesterday and she is
on it. But Dan Marcus had been working on it with her and
he has been on leave all this week. Tracy and Dan will
focus on it upon Dan's return on Monday. We should have the
formal letters ready to go by mid-week.
I went over the task description with Tim in our

conversation and he thinks it is very good. In the tasking
you approved, we ask Tim to examine U.S. counterterrorism
policy from 1968 until 1989. He asked that he be permitted
to extend his review through the end of President Bush's
(Senior) administration, i.e., until January 1993.
Essentially, Tim thinks by ending his review in 1989 he will
be cut off in mid-stream during a period when interesting
things are going on: the collapse of the Soviet Union, etc.
I think he makes a good case and I suggest we agree to
lengthening his review. This will mean that there will be a
couple of years more overlap with David Tucker's piece but
that, I think, should be viewed as a good thing.
Compensation: You approved $15,000 payment each to Naftali

and Tucker. I raised this figure with Tim and asked for his
reaction. He said he thought it was somewhat low. He
explained that he is under contract now (some research
project for the army? or other usg entity?) and he is paid
at the rate of $65 an hour. He calculates the work we are
asking him to do could require 400 hours. Thus, he thinks
something in the neighborhood of $20,000 - $25,000 would be
fairer. In your original email to me (July 31) approving
the proposal to have Naftali and Tucker write monographs you
wrote: W I approve your going forward with the plan you have
proposed. You can offer more money if you need to."
Subsequent to that, Chris K. requested that I get back to
him if I "do not get their agreement at 15K." (I think,
although I am not sure, that Chris was not objecting to
paying more, he just wanted to ensure he had a good grasp of
the total numbers for budget-tracking purposes.)
Expenses: Tim Naftali then raised a point that I must admit
I had not thought about. He said that he would need a
budget to cover travel expenses, for going to and spending
time at various presidential libraries to research. Tim
also said that he would like to go to Israel where he could
do research on terrorism, and where he has many contacts
among retired Shin Bet officers who are knowledgeable about
terrorism during the period we are asking him to examine.
Philip, it makes perfectly good sense to me that we fund

Naftali's and Tucker's expenses involved in researching at
presidential libraries. I think, however, that the trip to
Israel is harder to justify. It suggested to me also that
in future conversations with Tim, I (and Warren) will need
to make clear to him that the focus of what we are asking
him to do is really at the presidential and principals'
level: what choices were Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush
making regarding how to respond to terrorism during their
eras? I don't think that, however interesting down-in-the-
weeds actions in Israel were at the time, they will shed
great light on the higher-level issues we are most
interested in recounting.
I'd like to suggest the following: 1) we approve a $20,000

payment each to Tucker and Naftali for the task of writing
the monographs, the task-descriptions of which you have
approved. That represents $5,000 more for each than you
originally approved. But, Naftali makes a good case and if
they do the good work that we expect it will be worth it.
2) we approve up to $5,000 each in travel expenses (research
at presidential libraries, etc.), for which they will have
to submit receipts, tickets, the usual array of gov't
requirements associated with travel for gov't purposes. I
think we should nix funding Naftali's proposed trip to
Israel, unless you see reasons I'm missing that justify it.
So, I'm asking your approval for the higher fee-for-task

figure, and for the $5,000 travel budget for each. Philip,
please let me know whether you agree with this. If you do,
I will then send an email to "front office" proposing these
modified terms. Again, I don't expect Chris to oppose, but
he will question this and I just want to ensure you are
informed in advance for "top cover" purposes.
Tim had another good point. He knows he will not be

researching sensitive documents. But there are a number of
former officials, in some cases high-ranking officials from
the 70's and 80's that he thinks will shed light on u.s.
counterterrorism policy during the period in which they
exercised responsibility. Clearly, neither Naftali or
Tucker are staffers; but they will be on contract with the
Commission. And Tim wonders whether there is some kind of
cachet they can have that will assist them in opening the
doors they need opened for interviews—for example, a letter
specifying they are doing work on the Commission's behalf?
(Tucker has raised the same issue with me.) This request
raises a number of issues and we will need Dan M.'s and
Steve D.'s input. I just wanted to flag it to you.
It was a pleasure talking to Tim. He's clearly a smart guy

and he is eager and enthusiastic to begin work. David
Tucker's enthusiasm for the project is equally evident.
Warren and I will work closely with both.
Philip, I apologize for the length of this note, but I know

you are following this closely and I wanted to ensure you
are fully in the loop.
Mike
Mail:: INBOX: RE: Next Steps with Tucker and Naftali Page 1 of 2
76.48MB / 476.84MB (16.04%)

Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 15:22:02 -0400
From: "" <sdunne@9-11commission.gov>4F
To: Tracy Shycoff <tshycoff@9-11 commission.gov>^
Cc: "" <mhurley@9-11commission.gov>4f,"" <dmarcus@9-11commission.gov> 41
Subject: RE: Next Steps with Tucker and Naftali
Tracy -- I'm out next week, but Dan will be back, so you can pursue this with
him. I think that Mike can explain to them the terms of the contract we are
putting together, and they can certainly start work if they want to, but it is
really up to them whether they want to wait to see the official contract or get
started without it.
Quoting Tracy Shycoff <tshycoff@9-llcommission.gov>:
> Mike--I'm going to be speaking with a contracting officer for GSA on Monday
> and will ask them about this item also. I'll then work with Steve to come
> up with the appropriate contract. I don't see any reason why you can't
> contact the two contractors to get them started in the meantime. Steve--do
> you agree?
>
> Tracy J Shycoff
> Deputy for Administration and Finance
> National Commission on Terrorist Attacks
> Upon the United States
> 202-401-1718
> 202-358-3124
>
> Original Message
> From: mhurley@9-llcommission.gov [mailto:mhurley@9-llcommission.gov]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 8:46 AM
> To: tshycoff@9-llcommission.gov
> Cc: sdunne@9-llcommission.gov
> Subject: Next Steps with Tucker and Naftali
>
> Hi Tracy:
>
> How are you doing?
>
> Per various email exchanges last week, Philip has approved tasking two
> academics, David Tucker and Tim Naftali, to write monographs on the history
> of
> Counterterrorism policy. Chris raised a coupld of questions, even after
> Philip's approval, and I answered them to Chris's satisfaction. So, he is
> supportive, too.
>
> I wanted to ask you what the next step is. Do we send letters to Tucker and
>
> Naftali confirming what they want them to do and what we pay them?
>
> Philip has approved the language I proposed defining each of their
> research/writing tasks for the commission. We can easily roll that language
>
> into the letters. We also have a deadline for when we would like them to
> complete their work and submit it to us.
>
> I assume these would go out under Dan Marcus's or Steve's signature? Or
> should
> they be sent under Philip's signature.
Mail:: INBOX: RE: Next Steps with Tucker and Naftali Page 2 of 2
> Let me know how I can assist in this. Should we draft a letter to each and
> have you and Dan/Steve fill in the admin/legal details? What do you
> suggest?
>
> Thanks for your help, Tracy. I know you are extremely busy and that this is
>
> just one thing on your plate.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike
Mail:: INBOX: Re: Task Description for Tucker and Naftali Page 1 of 5
50.11MB/476.84MB (10.51%)
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 19:10:29 -0400
From: "" <ckojm@ 9-11 commission .gov>^
To: "" <mhurley@9-11 commission.gov> 41
Cc: "" <pzelikow@9-11commission.gov>4P,"" <dmarcus@9-11 commission.gov>9,"" <sdunne@9-
11 commission.gov?-^,"" <skaplan@9-11 commission.gov>4J,"" <team3@9-11 commission.gov>9,""
<tshycoff@9-11 commission.gov> 41
Subject: Re: Task Description for Tucker and Naftali
Mike -- your reply is a thoughtful one. Please proceed as you indicate.
Quoting "" <mhurley@9-llcommission.gov>:
> Chris:
>
> Thanks for your comments. Per my interim reply yesterday, I promised a more
>
> detailed reply to your points.
>
> The overlap in the studies: When you, Philip, Dan Byman, and I first
> discussed
> this during the 2nd week in June, the original plan was to have Tim Naftali
> and
> David Tucker each examine the same set of years--in other words, complete
> overlap. We agreed that we could then pick and choose from their work.
>
> Later, it seemed to make more sense to divide their review, largely
> differentiate the periods they cover, but still maintain some overlap. In
> the
> task descriptions, the demarcation between Naftali's assignment and Tucker's
>
> was somewhat arbitrary. There is about 4 years of overlap, the period
> between
> 1985 (where Tucker begins) and 1989 (where Naftali ends).
>
> I still think some overlap is a good idea. Bear in mind that we can do what
> we
> want with the monographs they produce. Neither you, nor Philip (nor
> Commissioners for that matter, should they be interested in how we handle
> this)
> have weighed in on the ultimate use of these monographs. I should think that
>
> at a minimum, they will be helpful to Team 3 as we do our writing, and
> perhaps
> ultimately higher management will decide the monographs should be included as
>
> annexes to the Commission's report. Even in that case, we would be able to
> edit out any overlap, and resolve any inconsistencies in Naftali's and
> Tucker's
> work.
>
> That's my view of the overlap question. But obviously I am prepared to
> change
> the task descriptions if you feel strongly about this.
>
> Regarding your point about the U.S./Soviet Cold War struggle and how it
> affected our response to terrorism: During the Cold War, U.S. policy makers
>
> who crafted counterterrorism policy had to consider how our actions against
http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?Horde=6e3f79a9f02ffce501efa47a9c... 8/8/03
> terrorism would affect U.S. and Soviet efforts to gain the upper hand in the
>
> Middle East. As Tim Naftali will be primarily covering counterterrorism
> policy
> during the Cold War, it makes sense for him to address the issue.
>
> Just to gain a different perspective, we thought it would also be good for
> Tucker to consider the issue but only in the last years of the Cold War: Was
>
> the Cold War still a factor in our counterterrosim policy during the waning
> days of the superpower conflict in the late 1980's? But I want to make clear
>
> that question, as framed in Tucker's task description, was meant to be a
> subsidiary question, not the focus of what we are asking him to do. Again,
> bear in mind that we can discard whatever doesn't add to our overall
> objectives, and as long as it's not going to require much time from Tucker,
> won't require any time from us, and there is a chance something interesting
> will surface I don't think we lose anything in going ahead with the tasking
> as
> laid out.
>
> Chris, that is my position. But I defer to you and will change the task
> descriptions if you are not persuaded by my explanation of what we are trying
>
> to do.
>
> The Way Ahead: Chris, please let me know if you are holding firm on your
> push-
> back. Pending that just wanted to update you:
>
> Tracy Shycoff and Dan Marcus are working on language (contract) memorializing
>
> our agreement-compensation terms-with Tim Naftali and David Tucker. We can
> roll into that the task descriptions that we agree upon. To ease future
> editorial work, I will also add the request that they do their work in
> Microsoft Word, and advise that before long we will send stylistic guidance
> for
> their footnoting, etc. (once we have a pretty good idea of those matters at
> this end). I'm hoping we can get formal letters fax'ed and or "snail-mailed"
>
> to them next week.
>
> I'd be happy to talk to you further about any of the above points.
>
> Thanks, Mike
>
>
> Quoting "" <ckojm@9-llcommission.gov>:
>
> > Mike -- I don't understand why you are having these two studies overlap --
> > '68-
> > '89 in one case, arid 1985 to 1998 in the other. You are also asking them
> > both
> > to comment as to the nature of terrorism as part of the US/Soviet cold war
>
> > struggle. This is really outside our mandate, and one party treating it is
>
> > sufficient. Rather, I would have the second study pick up from the point
> of
http:/Mnesis.swishrnail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?Horde=6e3f79a9f02ffce501efa47a9c... 8/8/03
> > the end of the Cold War and the changing nature of terrorism.
> > Quoting "" <mhurley@9-llcommission.gov>:
> > > Philip,
> > > Last week you approved the proposal to have David Tucker and Tim Naftali
> > > write
> > > monographs on the history (since 1968) of U.S. counterterrorism policy.
> > > This is the specific tasking that I propose for each of them. Request
> your
> > > concurrence and/or any additions or modifications you would like to see
> in
> > > the
> > > description. In short, is this on the right track?
> > > Begin Text of Tucker and Naftali writing descriptions
> > > (Naftali)
> > > The Commission wants you to examine U.S. counterterrorism policy during
> the
> > > second half of the Cold War, particularly from 1968 (often considered
> the
> > > birth
> > > of modern terrorism) to 1989. In your work, please review the importance
> of
> > > terrorism in overall U.S. foreign policy. Was it a minor concern or a
> maj or
> >
> > > driver of policy? Also examine what policymakers saw as the primary
> > threat.
> > > Was
> > > terrorism viewed as part of the U.S.-Soviet struggle, an issue of
> concern
> > > with
> > > rogue states, or a domestic problem?
> > > We are particularly interested in the evolution of U.S. counterterrorism
> > > strategy. Did policymakers see terrorism as a criminal matter or a
> national
> > > security concern? How did they fight terrorism - through law enforcement,
> > > intelligence, military strikes, or other means? Which agencies took the
> > 1ead,
> > > and how did they coordinate with each other?
lail:: INBOX: Re: Task Description for Tucker and Naftali Page 4 of 5
> > > Finally, we seek your assessment of the effectiveness of overall U.S.
> > > counterterrorism policy during this period. Did it reduce terrorism and
> > > advance
> > > other U.S. interests? Did it properly draw on all elements of U.S.
> national
> >
> > > power? What, if anything, hindered a more effective policy?
> > >
> > >
> > > In addition to answering these questions, please provide additional
> > analysis
> > > of
> > > important issues that you identify - we want to be open to what you
> > discover
> > > in
> > > your work. Please keep us informed as your work progresses, so we can
> > offer
> > > our
> > > input and so your research can aid our ongoing investigation.
> > >
> > >
> > > The final draft should be delivered to the Commission by January 15,
> 2004.
> > > (Tucker)
> > > The Commission wants you to examine U.S. counterterrorism policy for the
> > > years
> > > immediately before and after the end of the Cold War. We suggest you
> > review
> > > the
> > > period from 1985 until 1998 in your work. Please assess the importance of
> > > terrorism in overall U.S. foreign policy. Was it a minor concern or a
> major
> > > driver of policy? What was the impact of the end of the Cold War?
> > > Also examine what policymakers saw as the primary threat. Was terrorism
> > > viewed
> > > solely as part of the U.S.-Soviet struggle, an issue of concern with
> rogue
> > > states, or a domestic problem? Did Sunni extremism register as a problem
> > with
> > > policy makers? How was al-Qa'ida viewed as it emerged in the early 1990s?
>
> > >
> > >
> > > We are particularly interested in the evolution of U.S. counterterrorism
> > > strategy during this time. Did policymakers see terrorism as a criminal
> > > matter
> > > or a national security concern? How did they fight terrorism - through
> law
> >
> > > enforcement, intelligence, military strikes, or other means? Which
> agencies
> >
> > > took the lead, and how did they coordinate with each other?
> > >
> > >
> > > Finally, we seek your assessment of the effectiveness of overall U.S.
> > > counterterrorism policy during this period. Did it reduce terrorism and
> > > advance
> > > other U.S. interests? Did it properly draw on all elements of U.S.
> national
> >
> > > power? What, if anything, hindered a more effective policy?
> > >
> > >
> > > In addition to answering these questions, please provide additional
> > analysis
> > > of
> > > important issues that you identify - we want to be open to what you
> > discover
> > > in
> > > your work. Please keep us informed as your work progresses, so we can
> > offer
> > > our
> > > input and so your research can aid our ongoing investigation.
> > >
> > >
> > > The final draft should be delivered to the Commission by January 15,
> 2004.
http ://kinesis. swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?Horde=6e3 f79a9f02ffce501 efa47a9c... 8/8/03

ail:: INBOX: Re: Task Description for Tucker and Naftali Page 1 of3
¥i 49.59MB /476.84MB (10.40%)

^>ate: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 17:36:26-0400
From: "" <ckojm@9-11commission.gov>4P tU8.
V
1' W$J^
\j
To: "" <mhurley@9-11commission.gov>4P
Cc: "" <pzelikow@9-11commission.gov>4!P,"" <dmarcus@9-11commission.gov><ff, "" <sdunne@9-
11 commission.gov>^
Subject: Re: Task Description for Tucker and Naftali VSirvr-
Mike -- I don't understand why you are having these two studies overlap -- '68- IV
'89 in one case, and 1985 to 1998 in the other. You are also asking them both
to comment as to the nature of terrorism as part of the US/Soviet cold war
struggle. This is really outside our mandate, and one party treating it is
sufficient. Rather, I would have the second study pick up from the point of
the end of the Cold War and the changing nature of terrorism.
Quoting <mhurley@9-llcommission.gov>:
/
Philip,
Last week you approved the proposal to have David Tucker and Tim Naftali
write
> monographs on the history (since 1968) of U.S. counterterrorism policy.
>
> This is the specific tasking that I propose for each of them. Request your
> concurrence and/or any additions or modifications you would like to see in
> the
> description. In short, is this on the right track?
>
> Begin Text of Tucker and Naftali writing descriptions T^y
V
> (Naftali)
!l\1
The Commission wants you to examine U.S. counterterrorism policy during th

second half of the Cold War, particularly from 1968 (often considered the
birth
of modern terrorism) to 1989. In your work, please review the importance of
terrorism in overall U.S. foreign policy. Was it a minor concern or a major
driver of policy? Also examine what policymakers saw as the primary threat.
Was
terrorism viewed as part of the U.S.-Soviet struggle, an issue of concern
with
rogue states, or a domestic problem? |/£
We are particularly interested in the evolution of U.S. counterterrorism xiM/

strategy. Did policymakers see terrorism as a criminal matter or a national
security concern? How did they fight terrorism - through law enforcement,
intelligence, military strikes, or other means? Which agencies took the lead,
> and how did they coordinate with each other?
> Finally, we seek your assessment of the effectiveness of overall U.S.

> counterterrorism policy during this period. Did it reduce terrorism and
> advance
> other U.S. interests? Did it properly draw on all elements of U.S. national
> power? What, if anything, hindered a more effective policy?
> In addition to answering these questions, please provide additional analysis

> of
> important issues that you identify - we want to be open to what you discover
> in
> your work. Please keep us informed as your work progresses, so we can offer
> our
> input and so your research can aid our ongoing investigation.
>
>
> The final draft should be delivered to the Commission by January 15, 2004.
>
>
> (Tucker)
>
>
> The Commission wants you to examine U.S. counterterrorism policy for the
> years
> immediately before and after the end of the Cold War. We suggest you review
> the
> period from 1985 until 1998 in your work. Please assess the importance of
> terrorism in overall U.S. foreign policy. Was it a minor concern or a major
> driver of policy? What was the impact of the end of the Cold War?
>
>
> Also examine what policymakers saw as the primary threat. Was terrorism
> viewed
> solely as part of the U.S.-Soviet struggle, an issue of concern with rogue
> states, or a domestic problem? Did Sunni extremism register as a problem with
>
> policy makers? How was al-Qa'ida viewed as it emerged in the early 1990s?
>
>
> We are particularly interested in the evolution of U.S. counterterrorism
> strategy during this time. Did policymakers see terrorism as a criminal
> matter
> or a national security concern? How did they fight terrorism - through law
> enforcement, intelligence, military strikes, or other means? Which agencies
> took the lead, and how did they coordinate with each other?
>
>
> Finally, we seek your assessment of the effectiveness of overall U.S.
> counterterrorism policy during this period. Did it reduce terrorism and
> advance
> other U.S. interests? Did it properly draw on all elements of U.S. national
> power? What, if anything, hindered a more effective policy?
>
>
> In addition to answering these questions, please provide additional analysis
> of
> important issues that you identify - we want to be open to what you discover
> in
> your work. Please keep us informed as your work progresses, so we can offer
> our
> input and so your research can aid our ongoing investigation.
>
>
> The final draft should be delivered to the Commission by January 15, 2004.
http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?Horde=6e3f79a9fD2ffce501efa47a9c... 8/7/03
Mail:: INBOX: RE: Task Description for Tucker and Naftali Page 1 of 4
49.38MB / 476.84MB (1 0.36%)

Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 16:43:26 -0400
From: "" <mhurley@9-11commission.gov>4|
To: Tracy Shycoff <tshycoff@9-11commission.gov>4?
Cc: "" <mhurley@9-11commission,gov>4f r\^ U 1
Subject: RE: Task Description for Tucker and Naftali \e we have the contracts in
Thanks Tracy.
the task descriptions that Philip has just approved for Tim Naftali and David
Tucker.
Mike
Quoting Tracy Shycoff <tshycof f @9-llcommission.gov> :
> Mike--Dan and I discussed the mechanics of this yesterday. We'll work on it
> and get a contract in place quickly.
>
> Tracy J Shycoff
> Deputy for Administration and Finance
> National Commission on Terrorist Attacks
> Upon the United States
> 202-401-1718
> 202-358-3124
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pzelikow@9-llcommission.gov [mailto:pzelikow@9-llcommission.gov]
> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 3:20 PM
> To: mhurley@9-llcommission.gov
> Cc: ckojm@9-llcommission.gov; dmarcus@9-llcommission.gov;
> sdunne@9-llcommission.gov; tshycoff@9-llcommission.gov;
> skaplan@9-llcommission.gov; mhurley@9-llcommission.gov
> Subject: Re: Task Description for Tucker and Naftali
>
> Mike --
>
> Well done. No edits.
>
> Philip
>
>
> \Quoting "" <mhurley@9-llcommission.gov> :
>
> > Philip,
> >
> > Last week you approved the proposal to have David Tucker and Tim Naftali
> > write
> > monographs on the history (since 1968) of U.S. counterterrorism policy.
> >
> > This is the specific tasking that I propose for each of them. Request
> your
> > concurrence arid/or any additions or modifications you would like to see in
> > the
> > description. In short, is this oil the right track?
> > Begin Text of Tucker and Naftali writing descriptions
http://kinesis.swishmail.corn/webmail/imp/message.php?Horde=6e3f79a9f02ffce501efa47a9c... 8/7/03
ail:: INBOX: RE: Task Description for Tucker and Naftali
ymii Page 2 of 4
> >
> > (Naftali)
> > The Commission wants you to examine U.S. counter-terrorism policy during
> the
> > second half of the Cold War, particularly from 1968 (often considered the
> > birth
> > of modern terrorism) to 1989. In your work, please review the importance
> of
> > terrorism in overall U.S. foreign policy. Was it a minor concern or a
> major
> > driver of policy? Also examine what policymakers saw as the primary
> threat.
> > Was
> > terrorism viewed as part of the U.S.-Soviet struggle, an issue of concern
> > wi th
> > rogue states, or a domestic problem?
> >
> > We are particularly interested in the evolution of U.S. counterterrorism
> > strategy. Did policymakers see terrorism as a criminal matter or a
> national
> > security concern? How did they fight terrorism - through law enforcement,
> > intelligence, military strikes, or other means? Which agencies took the
> lead,
and how did they coordinate with each other?

> >
> > Finally, we seek your assessment of the effectiveness of overall U.S.
> > counterterrorism policy during this period. Did it reduce terrorism arid
> > advance
> > other U.S. interests? Did it properly draw on all elements of U.S.
> national
> > power? What, if anything, hindered a more effective policy?
> >
> > In addition to answering these questions, please provide additional
> analysis
> > of
> > important issues that you identify - we want to be open to what you
> discover
> > in
> > your work. Please keep us informed as your work progresses, so we can
> offer
> > our
> > input and so your research can aid our ongoing investigation.
> >
> > The final draft should be delivered to the Commission by January 15, 2004.
> >
> > (Tucker
> The Commission, wants you to examine U.S. counterterrorism policy for the
> years
http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmaiyimp/message.php?Horde=6e3f79a9f02ffce501efa47a9c... 8/7/03
/iail:: INBOX: RE: Task Description for Tucker and Naftali Page 3 of 4
> > immediately before and after the end of the Cold War. We suggest you
> review
> > the
> > period from 1985 until 1998 in your work. Please assess the importance of
> > terrorism in overall U.S. foreign policy. Was it a minor concern or a
> major
> > driver of policy? What was the impact of the end of the Cold War?
> >
> > Also examine what policymakers saw as the primary threat. Was terrorism
> > viewed
> > solely as part, of the U.S.-Soviet struggle, an issue of concern with rogue
>
> > states, or a domestic problem? Did Sunni extremism register as a problem
> with
> >
> > policy makers? How was al-Qa'ida viewed as it emerged in the early 1990s?
> >
> > We are particularly interested in the evolution of U.S. counterterrorism

> > strategy during this time. Did policymaker's see terrorism as a criminal
> > matter
> > or a national security concern? How did they fight terrorism - through law
>
> > enforcement, intelligence, military strikes, or other means? Which
> agencies
> > took the lead, and how did they coordinate with each other?
> >
> > Finally, we seek your assessment of the effectiveness of overall U.S.
> > counterterrorism policy during this period. Did it reduce terrorism and
> > advance
> > other U.S. interests? Did it properly draw on all elements of U.S.
> national
> > power? What, if anything, hindered a more effective policy?
> >
> >
> > In addition to answering these questions, please provide additional
> analysis
> > of
> > important issues that you identify - we want to be open to what you
> discover
> > in
> > your work. Please keep us informed as your work progresses, so we can
> offer
> > our
> > input arid so your research can aid our ongoing investigation.
> >
> >
> > The final draft should be delivered to the Commission by January 15, 2004.
http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/irnp/message.php?Horde=6e3f79a9f02ffce501efa47a9c... 8/7/03
il:: INBOX: RE: Task Description for Tucker and Naftali Page 4 of 4
Mail:: INBOX: Re: Fwd: Re: David Tucker and Tim Naftali Page 1 of 6
INBOX Compose Folders Options Search Problem? Help Addressbook Tasks Memos Calendar Logout OPen folder'
44.56MB / 476.84MB (9.35%)
INBOX: Re: Fwd: Re: David Tucker and Tim Move | copy lThis message to 3
(4 of 875) C®
Delete | Reply | Reply to All | Forward | Redirect | Blacklist | Message Source | Resume | Save as | Print Back to INBOX ^^
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 11:48:47 -0400
From: Daniel Byman <dlb32@georgetown.edu>^f
To: "" <mhurley@9-11commission.gov>4|
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: David Tucker and Tim Naftali
^ 1.2 unnamed text/html 9.40 KB ^
Mike,
See attached.
The only point I saw from Chris' email was about the date, so please let me know if there was something else. I recommend s
(so if they hand it in late by 1 January we'll still be fine).
Philip is right ~ 1980 is a strange date. I don't know why I had this in mind other than it was a nice round number. I suggest tt
Cold War period (1968-1989), while Tucker look at the transition (1985-1998). There will be some overlap, but not that much,
them answer similar questions, with a few additional ones for Tucker related to al-Qa'ida.
The ideal person to add to this is Warren. If he's not up to this, we may want to ask him to be in touch with Naftali and Tucker
this) when he recovers. He'll be the one adding to their work.
I popped Naftali a note to say that things look good and that we'd be in touch with specifics soon. Please let me know if you
with anything.
Dan
mhurley@9-11commission.gov wrote:
Dan,
The points Chris makes should be factored in to the paragraphs I've asked you
to write (see previous email).
Do you think 15K will be enough for this? I haven't discussed sums with Tucker
yet (except for referring to 20K when Philip first mentioned that figure during
our discussion on this in mid-June).
Mike
Forwarded message from " " <ckojm@9-11 commission.gov>

Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 1 5 : 3 6 : 5 8 -0400
From: " " <ckojm@9-11 commission.gov>
Reply-To: " " <ckojm@9-11 commission.gov>
Subject: Re: David Tucker and Tim Naftali
To: " " <mhurley@9-11 commission.gov>
Mike -- come back to me if you do not get their agreement at 15K. Also, what
due date do you propose? It should be one that enables you to draw from their
work as you write your monograph.
Quoting " " <pzelikow@9-11commission.gov>:
INBOX: Re: Fwd: Re: David Tucker and Tim Naftali Page 2 of 6
Mike --
I approve your going forward with the plan you have proposed. You can offer
more money if you need to.
I'm not sure that 1980 is the right dividing line, but I leave that to your
discretion.
This should be handled with the simplest kind of contract that Tracy can work
up. They would be contractors to us, and would not have access to our
classified information.
Philip
PhilipQuoting " " <mhurley@9-11 commission.gov>:
Chris:
You asked that I provide you with additional specifics on Team 3's
proposal
for
David Tucker and Tim Naftali's contribution to Team 3's work. They follow:
First, per previous discussions Dan Byman and I have had with you and
Philip,
we think there is a need for a historical review of U.S. Counterterrorism

policy. Some Commissioners have made this point. We do not consider it a
principal thrust of what Team 3 is doing—looking at Counterterrorism
policy
from 1998 until 9-11, the immediate aftermath of the attacks, and we are
combating terrorism now and will be in the future. But a historical
overview
will be important material for an annex to the report. More on the
rationale
below.
Our proposal is that we ask Tim Naftali to do a monograph on U.S.

counterterrorism policy from 1968 (first modern international terrorist
act--
pflp hijacking of international airliner) through 1980; and David Tucker
to
do
one on ct policy from 1980 through 1998. In addition to Tucker's scholarly
credentials he was a very serious practitioner/policy operator both in CIA

and
in ASD/SOLIC from 1985 through 1998, and that perspective and knowledge of
many
of the key players and DoD doctrines would inform his work. Some overlap
between the Naftali and Tucker monographs would be good.
Why do we need this?
It's true that we could just recommend Tucker's book "Skirmishes at the
Edge
of
Empire--U.S. Counterterrorism Policy from 1970 - 1990" to Commissioners for
their background. But that would not answer the interest of the American
public. The choices policy makers were making from 1998 until 9/11, and
possibly even after, were very much conditioned by how terrorism was
viewed
and
responded to during the previous 25 years. This is the stage upon which
al-
Qaida walked. That is, we had standard operating procedures formed in this
period, and we only adjusted them slowly as the new, and much different
threat
became clearer. This is important context and at least some in the public
will
want to know it. Our story will be incomplete if we don't address it in
http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?Horde:=6e3f79a9f02ffce501efa47a9c... 8/1/03
r:: INBOX: Re: Fwd: Re: David Tucker and Tim Naftali Page 4 of 6
appropriate way.
Placing it in an annex will provide the context but at the same time it
won' t
divert from the main focus of our work and it won't cut into the time of
Team
3
members.
How much should they be paid?
At our meeting on this in June, Philip said that he would be willing to pay
each of them up to $25,000 for a 50,000-word monograph. That figure came
off
the top of his head during the conversation, i.e., it was not a matter he
had
given deep thought. I would suggest that we might wish to pay each of them
$15,000 for a 30,000-word monograph. But I defer to Philip and you.
Decision:
Request a decision to proceed with the above plan.
If you and Philip agree, request guidance on how to proceed. (Per Philip's
guidance from the June discussion, Dan contacted Naftali and I contacted
Tucker
to broach the proposal, making clear no final decision had been reached.
Both
indicated strong interest at the time. Following that contact, the
proposal
was placed on hold pending review of the Commission's budget.) Again, if
you
agree, should we send letters to Tucker and Naftali specifying both what we
would like them to do and the compensation they will receive for the work?
Thanks,
Mike
End forwarded message
I 2 Naftali and Tucker descriptions.doc application/msword 31.52 KB
(Naftali)
The Commission wants you to examine U.S. counterterrorism policy during the second half of the Cold War, particularly from '
considered the birth of modern terrorism) to 1989. In your work, please review the importance of terrorism in overall U.S. forek
minor concern or a major driver of policy? Also examine what policymakers saw as the primary threat. Was terrorism viewed a
Soviet struggle, an issue of concern with rogue states, or a domestic problem?
We are particularly interested in the evolution of U.S. counterterrorism strategy. Did policymakers see terrorism as a <
national security concern? How did they fight terrorism - through law enforcement, intelligence, military strikes, or other means
took the lead, and how did they coordinate with each other?
Finally, we seek your assessment of the effectiveness of overall U.S. counterterrorism policy during this period. Did it
advance other U.S. interests? Did it properly draw on all elements of U.S. national power? What, if anything, hindered a more
In addition to answering these questions, please provide additional analysis of important issues that you identify - we
what you discover in your work. Please keep us informed as your work progresses, so we can offer our input and so your rese
ongoing investigation.
The final draft should be delivered to the Commission by December 1, 2003.
(Tucker)
The Commission wants you to examine U.S. counterterrorism policy for the years immediately before and after the end of the
suggest you review the period from 1985 until 1998 in your work. Please assess the importance of terrorism in overall U.S. for
minor concern or a major driver of policy? What was the impact of the end of the Cold War?
Also examine what policymakers saw as the primary threat. Was terrorism viewed solely as part of the U.S.-Soviet sti
< :: INBOX: Re: Fwd: Re: David Tucker and Tim Naftali Page 6 of 6
concern with rogue states, or a domestic problem? Did Sunni extremism register as a problem with policy makers? H<
viewed as it emerged in the early 1990s?
We are particularly interested in the evolution of U.S. counterterrorism strategy during this time. Did policymakers see
criminal matter or a national security concern? How did they fight terrorism - through law enforcement, intelligence, military stri
means? Which agencies took the lead, and how did they coordinate with each other?
Finally, we seek your assessment of the effectiveness of overall U.S. counterterrorism policy during this period. Did it
advance other U.S. interests? Did it properly draw on all elements of U.S. national power? What, if anything, hindered a more
In addition to answering these questions, please provide additional analysis of important issues that you identify - we
what you discover in your work. Please keep us informed as your work progresses, so we can offer our input and so your rese
ongoing investigation.
The final draft should be delivered to the Commission by December 1 , 2003.

Delete | Reply | Reply to All | Forward | Redirect | Blacklist | Message Source | Resume | Save as | Print Back to INBOX <l t>
Move | Copy |This message to
Mail:: Sent Items: Re Tucker & Naftali Page 1 of 1
43.52MB / 476.84MB (9.13%)

Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 08:54:05 -0400
From: "" <mhurley@9-11commission.gov>4P
To: "" <dlb32@georgetown.edu>4|
Subject: Re Tucker & Naftali
Dan:
I think I forwarded you yesterday Philip's approval for having Naftali and
Tucker do monographs for us. Tracy Shycoff is working on the contractual memo.
I would appreciate if you would do the following.
Could you spell out in a couple of paragraphs what we would like Naftali to do;
and then do the same thing for Tucker.
What I'm looking for is the specifics, the guidelines for what they are
supposed to produce.
I think you have the best sense of this. I'll review what you come up with.
We'll forward it to Philip for his o.k. and that will then be the basis of what
Tucker and Naftali will do. It needs to be clear to them.
Bear in mind that Philip wasn't sure that 1980 was the best dividing line. He
didn't say why. Whatever is the boundary between what we are asking Naftali to
do and what we are asking Tucker to do should have a rationale supporting it,
one that Philip will find persuasive.
I agree some overlap is good.
Probably we will send this out as a kind of memo along with a letter signed by
Philip that specifies the general nature of the work and the compensation that
~willT5&> paid for it.
I appreciate your help and am open to any other suggestions.
Regards,
Mike
,
o/
http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php ?Horde=6e3f79a9f02ffce501efa47a9c... 8/1/03

.Mail:: INBOX: Re: David Tucker and Tim Naftali Page 1 of 5
43.21 MB / 476.84MB (9.06%)

Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:23:45 -0400
^^ From: "" <dmarcus@9-11commission.gov>4|
To: "" <pzelikow@9-11commission.gov>4|
Cc: Tracy Shycoff <tshycoff@9-11 commission.gov>4P,"" <mhurley@9-11cornmission.gov>4|1,"" <ckojm@9-
11commission.gov>4J,"" <sdunne@9-11commission.gov>^,"" <skaplan@9-11commission.gov>4P
Tracy -- I'm not much of a govt contracts lawyer, but since we want this
product from these particular scholars, it could, I believe, be justified as a
sole-source contract if you don't think we can do a fixed-price contract for
personal services. DM
Quoting "" <pzelikow@9-llcommission.gov>:
> Tracy --
>
> These are unique scholarly products for which there are not an array of
> competitive vendors. But if it's easier to do it as a personal services
> contract . . .
>
> Philip
>
>
> Quoting Tracy Shycoff <tshycoff@9-llcommission.gov>:
>
> > Mike, I am happy to work on this with you. However, I think that I first
> > need
_^^ > > to speak with Dan or Steve regarding the contract. It. seems to me that
> these
> >
> > would be contracts for a specific product rather than a personal services
> > contract like we have used for many of our contract employees. If that's
> the
> >
> > case, I need some guidance on sole source justifications for the
> contracts.
> >
> > Dan/Steve thoughts?
> >
> > Tracy J Shycoff
> > Deputy for Administration and Finance
> > National Commission on Terrorist Attacks
> > upon the United States
> > 301 7th Street, SW Suite 51.25
> > Washington, DC 20407
> > 202-401-1718
> > 202-358-3124 (fax)
> >
> >
> > Quoting " " <pzelikow@9-llcomrnissiori.gov>:
> >
> > > Mike --
> > >
> > > I approve your going forward with the plan you have proposed. You can
> > offer
S* > > >
> > > more money if you need to.
http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?Horde=6e3f79a9f02ffce501efa47a9... 7/31/03
lil:: INBOX: Re: David Tucker and Tim Naftali Page 2 of 5
> > > I'm not sure that 1980 is the right dividing line, but I leave that to
> your
> >
> > > discretion.
> > >
> > > This should be handled with the simplest kind of contract that Tracy can
> > work
> > >
> > > up. They would be contractors to us, and would not have access to our
> > > classified information.
> > >
> > > Philip
> > >
> > > PhilipQuoting "" <mhurley@9-llcommission.gov>:
> > >
> > > > Chris:
> > > >
> > > > You asked that I provide you with additional specifics on Team 3's
> > > proposal
> > > > for
> > > > David Tucker and Tim Naftali 's contribution to Team 3's work. They
> > follow:
> > > > First, per previous discussions Dan Byman and I have had with you and
> > > Philip,
> > > >
> > > > we think there is a need for a historical review of U.S.
> Counterterrorism
> >
> > > > policy. Some Commissioners have made this point. We do not consider
> it
> > a
> > >
> > > > principal thrust of what Team 3 is doing- -looking at Counterterrorism
> > > policy
> > > >
> > > > from 1998 until 9-11, the immediate aftermath of the attacks, and we
> are
> >
> > > > combating terrorism now and will be in the future. But a historical
> > > overview
> > > >
> > > > will be important material for an annex to the report. More on the
> > > rationale
> > > >
> > > > below.
> > > >
> > > > Our proposal is that we ask Tim Naftali to do a monograph on U.S.
> > > > Counterterrorism policy from 1968 (first modern international
> terrorist
> > > > act--
> > > > pflp hijacking of international airliner) through 1980; and David
> Tucker
> > > to
> > > > do
> > > > one on ct policy from 1980 through 1998. In addition to Tucker's
> > scholarly
El:: INBOX: Re: David Tucker and Tim Naftali Page 3 of 5
> > > > credentials he was a very serious practitioner/policy operator both in
> > CIA
> > > > and
> > > > in ASD/SOLIC from 1985 through 1998, and that perspective and
> knowledge
> > of
> > > > many
> > > > of the key players and DoD doctrines would inform his work. Some
> overlap
> >
> > > > between the Naftali and Tucker monographs would be good.
> > > >
> > > > Why do we need this?
> > > >
> > > > It's true that we could just recommend Tucker's book "Skirmishes at
> the
> > > Edge
> > > > of
> > > > Empire--U.S. Counterterrorism Policy from 1970 - 1990" to
> Commissioners
> > for
> > >
> > > > their background. But that would not answer the interest of the
> American
> >
> > > > public. The choices policy makers were making from 1998 until 9/11,
> and
> >
> > > > possibly even after, were very much conditioned by how terrorism was
> > > viewed
> > > > and
> > > > responded to during the previous 25 years. This is the stage upon
> which
> > > al-
> > > > Qaida walked. That is, we had standard operating procedures formed in
> > this
> > >
> > > > period, and we only adjusted them slowly as the new, and much
> different
> > > > threat
> > > > became clearer. This is important context and at least some in the
> > public
> > > > will
> > > > want to know it. Our story will be incomplete if we don't address it
> in
> > > some
> > > >
> > > > appropriate way.
> > > >
> > > > Placing it in an annex will provide the context but at the same time
> it
> > > won't
> > > >
> > > > divert from the main focus of our work and it won't cut into the time
> of
> > > Team
> > > > 3
> > > > members.
>lail:: INBOX: Re: David Tucker and Tim Naftali Page 4 of 5
> > > > How much should they be paid?
> > > > At our meeting on this in June, Philip said that he would be willing
> to
> > pay
> > > > each of them up to $25,000 for a 50,000-word monograph. That figure
> > came
> > > off
> > > > the top of his head during the conversation, i.e., it was not a matter
> > he
> > > had
> > > > given deep thought. I would suggest that we might wish to pay each of
> > them
> > > > $15,000 for a 30,000-word monograph. But I defer to Philip and you.
> > > > Decision:
> > > > Request a decision to proceed with the above plan.
> > > > If you and Philip agree, request guidance on how to proceed. (Per
> > Philip's
> > > > guidance from the June discussion, Dan contacted Naftali and I
> contacted
> > > > Tucker
> > > > to broach the proposal, making clear no final decision had been
> reached.
> > > > Both

> > > > indicated strong interest at the time. Following that contact, the
> > > proposal
> > > > was placed on hold pending review of the Commission's budget.) Again,
> if
> > > you
> > > > agree, should we send letters to Tucker and Naftali specifying both
> what
> > we
> > > > would like them to do and the compensation they will receive for the
> > work?
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Mike
Mail:: INBOX: Re: David Tucker and Tim Naftali Page 1 of 3
43.27MB / 476.84MB (9.07%)

Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:36:58 -0400
From: "" <ckojm@9-1 1 commission. gov>4?
To: "" <mhurley@9-11commission.gov>4f
Cc: "" <pzelikow@9-11commission.gov><^, "" <tshycoff@9-11commission.gov>4l> "" <dmarcus@9-
11commission.gov>4P'! "" <sdunne@9-11commission.gov>^, "" <skaplan@9-11commission.gov>4P'
Mike -- come back to me if you do not get their agreement at 15K. Also, what
due date do you propose? It should be one that enables you to draw from their
work as you write your monograph.
Quoting "" <pzelikow@9-llcommission.gov> :
> Mike --
>
> I approve your going forward with the plan you have proposed. You can offer
>
> more money if you need to.
>
> I'm not sure that 1980 is the right dividing line, but I leave that to your
> discretion.
>
> This should be handled with the simplest kind of contract that Tracy can work
>
> up. They would be contractors to us, and would not have access to our
> classified information.
>
> Philip
>
> PhilipQuoting "" <mhurley@9-llcommission.gov> :
>
> > Chris:
> >
> > You asked that I provide you with additional specifics on Team 3 ' s
> proposal
> > for
> > David Tucker and Tim Naftali 's contribution to Team 3's work. They follow:
> > First, per previous discussions Dan Byman and I have had with you and
> Philip,
> >
> > we think there is a. need for a historical review of U.S. Counterterrorisin
> > policy. Some Commissioners have made this point. We do not consider it a
>
> > principal thrust of what Team 3 is doing—looking at Counterterrorisin
> policy
> >
> > from 1998 until 9-11, the immediate aftermath of the attacks, and we are
> > combating terrorism now and will be in the future. But a historical
> overview
> >
> > will be important material for an annex to the report. More on the
> rationale
> >
> > below.
http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmaiyimp/message.php?Horde=6e3f79a9f02ffce501efa47a9c... 8/1/03
:: INBOX: Re: David Tucker and Tim Naftali Page 2 of 3
> >
> > Our proposal is that we ask Tim Naftali to do a monograph on U.S.
> > counterterrorism policy from 1968 (first modern international terrorist
> > act--
> > pflp hijacking of international airliner) through 1980; and David Tucker
> to
> > do
> > one on ct policy from 1980 through 1998. In addition to Tucker's scholarly
> > credentials he was a very serious practitioner/policy operator both in CIA
> > arid
> > in ASD/SOLIC from 1985 through 1998, and that perspective and knowledge of
> > many
> > of the key players and DoD doctrines would inform his work. Some overlap
> > between the Naftali and Tucker monographs would be good.
> > Why do we need this?
> > It's true that we could just recommend Tucker's book "Skirmishes at the
> Edge
> > of
> > Empire--U.S. Counterterrorism Policy from 1970 - 1990" to Commissioners for
> > their background. But that would not answer the interest of the American
> > public. The choices policy makers were making from 1998 until 9/11, and
> > possibly even after, were very much conditioned by how terrorism was
> viewed
> > and
> > responded to during the previous 25 years. This is the stage upon which
> al-
> > Qaida walked. That is, we had standard operating procedures formed in this
> > period, and we only adjusted them slowly as the new, and much different
> > threat
> > became clearer. This is important context and at least some in the public
> > will
> > want to know it. Our story will be incomplete if we don't address it in
> some
> > appropriate way.
> > Placing it in an annex will provide the context but at. the same time it
> won't
> > divert from the main focus of our work and it won't cut into the time of
> Team
> > 3
> > members.
> > How much should they be paid?
> > At our meeting on this in June, Philip said that he would be willing to pay
> > each of them up to $25,000 for a 50,000-word monograph. That figure came
> off
> > the top of his head, during the conversation, i.e., it was not a matter he
> had
http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php ?Horde=6e3f79a9f02ffce501efa47a9c... 8/1/03

ail:: INBOX: Re: David Tucker and Tim Naftali Page 3 of 3
> > given deep thought. I would suggest that we might wish to pay each of them
> > $15,000 for a 30,000-word monograph. But I defer to Philip and you.
> > Decision:
> > Request a decision to proceed with the above plan.
> > If you and Philip agree, request guidance on how to proceed. (Per Philip's
> > guidance from the June discussion, Dan contacted Naftali and I contacted
> > Tucker
> > to broach the proposal, making clear no final decision had been reached.
> > Both
> > indicated strong interest at the time. Following that contact, the
> proposal
> > was placed on hold pending review of the Commission's budget.) Again, if
> you
> > agree, should we send letters to Tucker and Naftali specifying both what we
> > would, like them to do arid the compensation they will receive for the work?
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
^A
s=.
^
Mfessage Page 1 of 3
Mike Hurley
From: Timothy J. Naftali [tjn3y@virginia.edu]

Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 10:04 AM
To: tjn3y@virginia.edu; Mike Hurley; Warren Bass; 'Warren Bass'
Subject: RE: FW: Naftali's Report
Mike,
I'm home all day if you want to talk about the piece.
9/11 Personal Privacy
Tim.
—Original Message
From: Timothy J. Nattali [mailto:tin3y@virginia.edu]
To: 'Mike Hurley'; 'Warren Bass'; "Warren Bass'
Mike,
Oh, that's fine. I thought you wanted an introduction. The Warren/Team 2 edit requested an intro and gave
suggestions for things I might include. But perhaps it is now too late for that. May I just have a paragraph
or two introducing the piece and thanking people who helped me. Believe me I don't want to create more
work for you or me.
Although Warren's helpful edits were mainly along the line of making cuts for the sake of clarity and tone, I
have had to add a few paragraphs to the piece in response to queries from Team 2 and Yoel. So, I hope
that your editor will have a chance to give the piece a read through.
As I mentioned over the weekend I was pleased to see a couple of references to the piece in the final
report. Have you decided how I will be credited for the work? Right now some of my footnotes have "note
to author...," I hope I will be the author but this point has never been made absolutely clear to me. And
when and where will this piece appear?
In any case, you will have all of my chapters tomorrow.
Good luck with your final push.
Thanks.
Tim.
—Original Message
From: Mike Hurley [mailto:mhurley@9-llcommission.gov]
To: tjn3y@vlrglnia.edu; Warren Bass; Warren Bass
Tim,
7/26/2004
Message Page 2 of 3
Thanks for your work. It added to our understanding of terrorism

and what the USG did about it, and enriched our report.
I would urge you to limit the introduction (which you refer to

below) to only a very few factual sentences, and those should be
kept neutral in tone, rather than analytic or editorial. This Friday
is the last day for most of the Commission's staff and we simply
don't have time to do additional editing.
Again, great job.
Mike
Original Message
From: Timothy J. Naftali [mailto:tjn3y@virginia.edu]
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 3:53 PM
To: Mike Hurley; Warren Bass; 'Warren Bass'
Subject: FW: FW: Naftali's Report
2nd try.
Original Message
To: 'Warren Bass'; Timothy J. Naftali1
Cc: 'Mike Hurley1
Thanks Warren.
Just so you have a sense of where I stand now. I have received edits from Yoel for all but
the Bush chapter. He offered to come in last night to do it. I told him to have a weekend. I
have edited all but Reagan II, which I am working on again today. When I get Yoel's last
submission I will check it against my edited Bush chapter to see whether we all caught
everything.
Tomorrow I will do that (assuming Yoel sends me his remaining comments tomorrow) and
finish a short introduction. I'd like you to have the entire piece Tuesday.
BTW I have taken some time to read the 9/11 report. It is a beautiful piece of work. I have
more to say about it and what I think it does for the study of government, let alone the
tragedy, but that can wait for another time. The Warren Commission unfortunately did not
get a chance to interrogate Oswald but reading between the lines I think I caught that the
staff was able to provoke reinterrogations of KSM. You seem to have maximized access to
information of all kinds.
On a parochial note, I was pleased to see a few footnote references to the 1968-1993 piece
which was described as a Commission analysis. I feel a lot of pride in being associated in
this way with your work.
Tim.
—Original Message—
From: Warren Bass [mailto:wbass@9-llcommission.gov]
7/26/2004
Message Page 3 of 3

To: Timothy 1 Naftali
Cc: Mike Hurley; LorryFenner@aol.com; Kevin Scheid
Tim, just FYI, from Lony—I think she makes a good point.
Original Message
From: LorryFenner@aol.com [mailto:LorryFenner@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 4:33 PM
To: Warren Bass; Kevin Scheid
Cc: Mike Hurley
Subject: Re: FW: Naftali's Report
In a message dated 7/20/2004 10:38:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

wbass@9-11commission.gov writes:
Report
If it is not too late. I can't really say too much on the other points, but I think
Charlie Allen (you have probably already told Tim this) had a huge play in CT
(as well as other missions) collection across disciplines at the tactical and
operational level - our debate with him has been on how he handled strategic
planning and collection for CT. Turco probably didn't have as much play as
he got into other things including the IOC - but they too eventually had a CT
part of the mission (so at least his people were playing) - after 9/11 he did as
well (the minder would not let him talk much about that since it was after 20
Sep 01. Ask Gordon and I typed up my notes the best I could.
7/26/2004
Mail:: INBOX: Re: Tucker and Naftali Page 1 of 2
33.22MB / 476.84MB (6.97%)

Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 14:37:55 +0100
From: "" <dlb32@georgetown.edu>^
To: "" <mhurley@9-11commission.gov>4l
Subject: Re: Tucker and Naftali
SEE CAPS
----- Original Message -----

From: "" <mhurley@9-llcommission.gov>
Date: Monday, July 21, 2003 11:13 pm
Subject: Tucker and Naftali
> Dan,
>
> I detected a little warming in Chris K. today regarding our
> proposal to have
> eitehr Tucker or Naftali or both do some background on CT policy.
> Chris is
> getting the $ numbers for the Commission (what we have left) in a
> day or so .
> He thinks the picture may not be as bad as he feared.
>
GOOD NEWS
> He asked me the following questions:

>
> What should their historical review encompass (I think he means
> from when to
> when)? I'd say from about 1970 to 1998, which is when we pick it
> up from
> sensitive materials and interviews.
TO BE NITPICKY, HOW BOUT 1968 (THE BIRTHDAY OF MODERN TERRORISM)

THROUGH 1998.
> How will their review fit into the big picture of what Team 3 and
> the
> Commission is doing? I'd say as an annex?
MOST OF IT AS AN ANNEX, BUT THE 1993-1998 STUFF SHOULD BE GREATLY

AUGMENTED BY OUR WORK, I WOULD THINK. BUT THEN WE HAVE TO DO IT ...
> Why do we need this? Why can't we just recommend Tucker's book to
> the
> Commissioners? I'd say that's fine for the Commissioners but the
> American
> public might want to see this placed in context. I think that the
> choices
> policy makers were making from 1998 to 9/11 were very much
> conditioned by how
> terrorism was viewed and responded to in the previous 25 years.
NICE WAY OF PUTTING IT. SAY THAT THIS IS THE STAGE UPON WHICH AL-
QAEDA WALKED. THAT IS, WE HAD STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FORMED IN
THIS PERIOD, AND WE ONLY ADJUSTED THEM SLOWLY AS THE THREAT BECAME
CLEARER .
:: INBOX: Re: Tucker and Naftali Page 2 of 2
> Spell out why we need a monograph from them. Should they both do
> it? Should
> they work on different parts? Maybe Tucker from 1970 -1990;
> Naftali from 1990
> to 1998.
PZ ORIGINALLY TALKED ABOUT THEM BOTH DOING THE SAME PERIOD. I LIKE
THE IDEA OF HAVING SOME OVERLAP, BUT ASKING NAFTALI TO CONCENTRATE
MORE ON THE EARLY YEARS, AND TUCKER TO DO THE LATER YEARS (SAY AFTER
1980 OR SO) . BUT OVERLAP IS GOOD. I HOPE THAT SOMEONE LIKE WARREN
WOULD THEN TAKE THESE AND USE IT AS BASIC MATERIAL, WHICH HE WOULD
THEN REWRITE WITH HIS OWN STUFF ADDED.
> How much should they be paid? Remember at the meeting we had
> Philip just
> tossed out the figure $20,000 for a 50,000 word manuscript. Maybe
> we could pay
> them each $10,000 for a 30,000 word manuscript.
SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD FIGURE.

>
> Dan, would appreciate your thoughts on anbetter justification we
> can offer, the better chance we will get the approval
> to forge ahead.
>
> I think this background is important to Team 3's overall effort.
> This all has
> to be placed in its historical context, so it can be seen how
> different the a-Q
> threat is, and why it demanded non-traditional response before
> 9/11, but didn't
> get one .
DO YOU WANT ME TO DO A MORE FORMAL WRITEUP OF THE JUSTIFICATION? IF

SO, I'LL TRY TO GET TO IT SOON -- I NEED TO BLOCK OFF SOME TIME FROM
FAMILY .
> Mike
>
>
Mail:: Sent Items: Tucker and Naftali Page 1 of 1
32.50MB /476.84MB (6.82%)

Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:13:03 -0400
From: "" <mhurley@9-11commission.gov>4|
To: "" <dlb32@georgetown.edu>4P
Subject: Tucker and Naftali
Dan,
I detected a little warming in Chris K. today regarding our proposal to have

eitehr Tucker or Naftali or both do some background on CT policy. Chris is
getting the $ numbers for the Commission (what we have left) in a day or so.
He thinks the picture may not be as bad as he feared.
He asked me the following questions:
What should their historical review encompass (I think he means from when to
when)? I'd say from about 1970 to 1998, which is when we pick it up from
sensitive materials and interviews.
How will their review fit into the big picture of what Team 3 and the
Commission is doing? I'd say as an annex?
Why do we need this? Why can't we just recommend Tucker's book to the
Commissioners? I'd say that's fine for the Commissioners but the American
public might want to see this placed in context. I think that the choices
policy makers were making from 1998 to 9/11 were very much conditioned by how
terrorism was viewed and responded to in the previous 25 years.
Spell out why we need a monograph from them. Should they both do it? Should
they work on different parts? Maybe Tucker from 1970 -1990; Naftali from 1990
to 1998.
How much should they be paid? Remember at the meeting we had Philip just
tossed out the figure $20,000 for a 50,000 word manuscript. Maybe we could pay
them each $10,000 for a 30,000 word manuscript.
Dan, would appreciate your thoughts on any/all of the above questions. The
better justification we can offer, the better chance we will get the approval
to forge ahead.
I think this background is important to Team 3's overall effort. This all has
to be placed in its historical context, so it can be seen how different the a-Q
threat is, and why it demanded non-traditional response before 9/11, but didn't
get one.
Mike
http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?Horde=6e3f79a9f02ffce501 efa47a9... 7/21/03

Message Page 1 of 3
Mike Hurley

Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 2:43 PM
To: Warren Bass
Cc: Timothy J. Naftali'; Mike Hurley
Subject: RE: Naftali's Report
Warren,
I don't mind holding on to the 9/11 piece a few extra days. The issue for me is that I need to return to the final edit
for my Khrushchev book and want the 9/11 piece to be in the completed category.
The memo to you looks like it will be very, very short. So far (and I am nearly done) I think there are only two
places in the entire manuscript where I disagreed with an editorial suggestion. We need to discuss how I
handle Jeanne Dixon's prediction, which did play a significant role in the formation of the Cabinet Committee
(1972), and the last page of the Bush section, where I conclude the hostage story. I did trim both sections to
soften the tone, but both stories are important to the evolution of US CT strategy. With all due respect, I believe
the Team 2 comment that "these people stayed around" in response to my point that a generational shift occured
in 1992 is not accurate. Turco may have still been in CIA but his beat were NOCs and he assures me that he was
never consulted by CTC's leadership. Revell and Baker were gone. Charlie Allen was around but I'm not sure he
mattered much to CT in the 1990s. Does Tucker mention him ?
Tim.
Original Message
To: tin3y@virginia.edu; Yoel Tobin
Cc: Timothy J. Naftali; Mike Hurley
Sounds great, guys. Thanks for doing this, Yoel.
Yoel, will you send Tim, Mike, and I a brief progress report sometime tomorrow late morning, just so we
can take stock of whether Tim should go ahead and send his version to the FO, or whether it'll be worth his
while to hold fire for a bit longer while he waits on your comments? The FO is still snowed with pre-rollout
details, so we may be better off doing the latter. But let's touch base tomorrow and see where we are.
Also, Tim, if you have that memo we discussed, we should work through that before we move the draft
ahead to the FO.
Having the final report done is a big load off; I do have my own monograph to write and other
responsibilities, but I think we have a good way ahead here. Thanks again for all your help, guys.
Warren
Original Message
To: Yoel Tobin
Cc: Timothy J. Naftali'; Warren Bass
7/19/2004
Message Page 2 of 3
Dear Yoel,
I would appreciate your comments and can imagine the pressure you have been under. I will be
sending in a draft late tomorrow but expect a little back and forth with the Front Office before the
manuscript appears in August. I'd suggest that you not bother with typos and stylistic issues. Your
colleagues, I believe, have found most, if not all, of them. Please read for factual or interpretive
errors.
Thanks.
Tim
Original Message
From: Yoel Tobin [mailto:ytobin@9-llcommission.gov]
To: tjn3y@virginia.edu
Cc: Timothy J. Naftali; Warren Bass
Professor Naftali:
I was talking to Warren a couple of hours ago - would it still be possible for me to take a
look at your draft and give you any comments tomorrow? I apologize for missing the
deadline, but it has been very intense around here with the publication of the Commission
report.
Yoel Tobin
Team 1,9/11 Commission
Original Message
From: Warren Bass
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 11:08 AM
To: staff
Cc: Timothy J. Naftali'
Subject: Naftali's Report
Colleagues,
Attached please find a copy of Tim Naftali's draft report on the evolution of U.S.
counterterrorism policy from LBJ to George H.W. Bush. We hope that the draft can
ultimately become a stand-alone monograph. We're deeply grateful to Tim for all his
hard work and dogged research on this—and glad to have someone of his stature
working on the project.
I'd be grateful if (in your abundant spare time) any and all of you would add your
own comments and edits on any of these sections, as your interest, expertise, and
workload dictates. Tim's given us a terrific first cut, and the collective wisdom of the
staff will surely help the piece along.
1. Please send changes directly to Tim at the above email;

tjn3y@virginia.edu will also work.
2. Please coordinate through your team leaders or the team point
staffer of your choice so Tim doesn't drown in comments; ideally, it'd be
easiest to just get one mark-up per team.
3. Please mark up all changes on the above Word files in track changes so
Tim can accept them as quickly as possible, rather than doing paper edits.
4. Please mark your files as, for instance, "Ford section T4 edits 071404" or
7/19/2004
Message Page 3 of 3
the like.
5. Please remember that this is an unclassified, open-source-based piece, so
please dont insert classified. That said, if you see errors, please make
sure we fix them.
6. Please be attentive to issues of evidence and sourcing.
7. Since time is short, please suggest fixes rather than just flagging
problems.
8. I've done an edit myself for style to make the piece have more of the voice of
our other publicly released products—trying to keep the vivid prose while
avoiding chattiness, digressions, or judgments of a type unlikely to pass
muster with our commissioners. But please keep an eye out for style issues
as well. (My edit, thanks to the genius of FedEx, has not yet been
incorporated but is making its way to Tim via Ireland—it's a long, sad
story.) Ultimately, this is a Commission work product, and we should keep
to the same just-the-facts-ma'am standards of evidence and sobriety that
have served us well.
9. The piece, while unclassified, is Commission Sensitive.
I'd be hugely grateful if you would make every effort to get your edits to Tim by
COB on Wednesday, July 14. That way, we can incorporate changes and forward
a draft to the Front Office within a few more days. If you'd like to weigh in but fear
you won't be able to hit that deadline, please drop me a line or pop by to chat, and
we'D find a way to make it work.
If you have any questions, please give me a call, or feel free to be in touch with Tim
to talk things through, either at home atl lor by cell at| |
Many thanks, all. .
Warren
7/19/2004
Message Page 1 of 2
Mike Hurley
From: Warren Bass

Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 1:21 PM
To: 'tjn3y@virginia.edu'
Cc: Mike Hurley
Subject: tim's piece
Sounds good—I'll thank 'em.
Enjoy the wedding... and really, don't kill yourself to hit COB Monday. Have a weekend—we all would if we could.
Honestly, the FO is so drowned in final details and roD-out prep that it's hard for me to imagine they will have
much time for other projects til after the report's launched. So I'd definitely take the time early next week to make
the T2 change in the Reagan section if you think it'll help, as it sounds like it did on Nixon. And if there are fixes
you don't like, just roll 'em into that memo and we'll work 'em over.
Original Message
To: Warren Bass
Subject: RE:
Team 1 (Hyon Kim) sent minor editorial fixes, but had clearly read the entire piece. Susan Ginsburg
asked me whether I knew of something called the Burkholder report from GHWBush, which I had not.
You and Team 2 are the reason why this will be a much better monograph.
I am heading off to NYC for a wedding in a couple of hours. I will be working on the train and should be
able to send it all back to you by COB Monday. The only hang up is that Team 2 wanted me to break out
stuff about non-military CT in RWR, which requires some effort. I did add some of that to the RN section
and much improved it and I don't mind doing this for RWR.
Tim.
Original Message
To: tjn3y@virginia.edu; Mike Hurley
Subject: RE:
Great, tim. We're drowning in final report stuff and likely to stay that way all wknd, but please
plunge ahead rolling in all the changes, and we'll shoot to get a staff-edited draft to the front office
soon. Have nagged people, and wiD do so again. Pis let us see a list of who's weighed in, will you?
Thanks,
Warren
Original Message
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 11:12 AM
To: Mike Hurley; Warren Bass
Subject:
7/19/2004
Page 2 of 2
Mike and Warren,
I have received some comments from other staff members and they are helpful.
Thanks.
Tim.
Timothy J. Naftali
Director
Presidential Recordings Program
Kremlin Decisionmaking Project
Miller Center of Public Affairs
2201 Old Ivy Road
PO Box 400406
Charlottesville, VA 22904
7/19/2004
Message Page 1 of 1
Mike Hurley

Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 2:08 PM
To: Warren Bass; Mike Hurley
Subject: My Work
Dear Mike and Warren,
I can imagine that you have many things to do these days. I just wanted to report in that until May 12 I will be busy
revising a different manuscript. But at that time I intend to return to the CT study to clean it up and make whatever
changes you suggest.
Best,
Tim.
4/23/2004
Mike Hurlev
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 3:52 PM
Subject: Clarke mistakes
Mike and Warren,

Well done on surviving the Rice to prepare for Rice.
I thought you should know that I have found more errors in the Clarke book.
1) He says that the first rendered terrorist Fahwaz Younis was guilty of killing three
Americans. Actually no one died, American or otherwise, on the plane he hijacked.
2) He has the USS Vincennes shooting down the IranAir plane AFTER the Pan Am 103 goes
down. Of course the sequence was reversed, which is why we suspected the Irans attacked
Pan Am 103.
3) He has the Iran-Iraq war ending in 1989.
4) He misdates the Khobar towers bombing, arguing that a speech President Clinton gave in
the winter of 1996 occurred AFTER Khobar Towers.
Weird mistakes.
By the way, you will get the remainder of my piece tomorrow.
Tim.
Message Page 1 of 1
Mike Hurley

Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 9:42 AM
Cc: Marquittia Coleman
Subject: Clarke's book
Warren and Mike,
For what it's worth, let me tell you that Clarke's book has a lot of historical errors. For example, Clarke places the
assassination of Meir Kahane by Nosair in 1992 instead of 1990 and says that Pan Am 103 was blown up during
Bush 41 's presidency [It happened under Reagan in December 1988] and asserts that 278 Americans died in the
Marine Barracks bombing in 1983 when it was 241 that died.
None of these errors is critical but they do suggest sloppiness. I can imagine he wrote his book quickly but
perhaps there is some sloppiness in areas that the Commission cares about.
It is curious that none of the reviews of the book picked up on these checkable errors.
Tim.
4/6/2004
Message Page 1 of 1
Mike Hurley

Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 1:17 PM
Subject: One more Rice and the Millenium Case
Mike and Warren,
Sorry for the typos in the previous email I am saving my editor's eye for the CT piece for you. [Including Clarke's
name]:)
It occured to me that it would be useful to know whether she had had time to look at the after action report on the
Milennium terrorist threat that Berger had commissioned. Presumably it made recommendations for improving
domestic security. Didn't that success rest on a lucky break -- an unusually attentive custom's officer?
Tim
Timothy J. Naftali
Director
2201 Old Ivy Road
PO Box 400406
4/5/2004
Message Pa§e l of
Mike Hurley
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:27 AM
Subject: The Remaining Sections
I have two more sections to send to you. One covers Reagan's second term (Achille Lauro, Libya, Abu Nidal) and
is shaping up to be as long as the Nixon chapter and a much shorter Bush chapter. I have another project to turn
to at the end of next weekend, so I will do everything I can to get them to you in an acceptable form this week.
I do hope that you find my sections useful as you write your final report.
Tim.
Timothy J. Naftali
Director
2201 Old Ivy Road
PO Box 400406
3/30/2004
Message Page 1 of 1
Mike Hurley
From: Timothy J. Naftali [tjn3y@Virginia.edj]

Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 3:04 AM
To: Mike Hurley; Warren Bass; Marquittia Coleman
Subject: LBJ Section
Here is the next section. I have left to send you the brief JFK intro, the long Reagan section and the comparatively
small GHWB section.
Nice seeing you today [and you, too, Marquittic] I enjoyed the public hearing and once I have exported the last
sections have some comments that might be useful to you as you work up your final staff report. I believe that the
evidence from 1968-1993 bears out what DGI Tenet said about a systemic failure. What disappointed me about
the questioning of Armitags later was that no cne asked him whether in restrospect he felt he had to unlearn
some of the lessons he had learned in the Reagan-era war on terrorism. I think the answer is "yes," and this
explains some of why the Bush team - with all of its collective foreign-policy experience - was behind the eight
ball on this issue. Some of that will be implicit in what I am sending you but the other elements I could tease out
for you in a separate memo or in a meeting at your office.
Tim.
3/25/2004
Message Page 1 of 2
Mike Hurley

To: Warren Bass; Mike Hurley; Marquittia Coleman
Subject: RE: Submission Schedule
Thanks Warren.
I, too, am excited and very grateful to the two of you and PZ. I have by now done a lot of reading on our subject
and there is no one single narrative (David Tucker's book is a very helpful primer but more poli sci than history)
on CT and the principals for this period. What a story it is turning out to be - from the hijackings to Detente to
Watergate to Lebanon to Iran-Contra to the Gulf War, you hit all of the high and low points of US political
history. By the way, to preview the RWR chapter, the President Reagan you will encounter is not the Reagan that
I, at least, expected: A much more interesting leader.
Best,
Tim.
Original Message
To: tjn3y@virginia.edu; Mike Hurley; Marquittia Coleman
Subject: RE: Submission Schedule
Thanks, Tim. It's really up to Mike, who has a much better sense than I do about the overall timetable—why
they pay him the big bucks. That said, I'm not panicked by this, largely because we're so swamped with
hearings prep for March 23-24.
So my vote would be to get it right, rather than having you knock yourself out. But after the hearings, we'll
want to start turning our attention to the piece.
Very excited about the piece; after this much time bashing my head against the walls of EOF, substance is a
blessed relief.
Best,
Warren
Original Message
To: Mike Hurley; Warren Bass; Marquittia Coleman
Subject: Submission Schedule
I want to give you an update on future submissions. I will be in Charlottesvile the new three days
and while there will try to send the JFK-LBJ section which is almost completely drafted but requires
some tweaking. Carter and Reagan through 1984 will be ready to go by the end of the day Friday
and the rest of Reagan and Bush by the end of next weekend or early Monday (I leave for NYC
Monday, March 22 at Noon). I spent a little longer on Nixon and Ford than I planned -- throwing off
the previous schedule -- but I hope the results make the time seem well spent.
3/15/2004
Message Page 2 of 2
If your drafting has reached the stage where you absolutely need to read specific sections -- e.g.,
the origins of the CTC, Abu Nidal, or Pan Am 103 -- next week, please tell me now and I will rush
those sections to the head of the queue.
Tim.
3/15/2004
Message Page 1 of 1
Mike Hurley
From: Mike Hurley

Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 11:31 AM
To: 'tjn3y@virginia.edu'; Warren Bass
Cc: Mike Hurley
Subject: RE: The CT Study
Tim,
Thanks so much for the update. Your submission schedule looks fine.
We look forward to reading the results of your hard work.
Regards,
Mike and Warren

Original Message
Subject: The CT Study
Good morning.
Tonight I will email you the first part of the piece, the section on Nixon and Ford. The entire report is
longer than I had expected. It will easily come in at 45,000 words instead of the original 30,000
words. Late tomorrow or by mid-day Friday, I will email the next big chunk of it to you, the Carter and
Reagan sections. By late Sunday, you will have the Bush section and the JFK-LBJ introduction.
I hope this submission schedule works for you.
Tim.
3/10/2004
Message Page 1 of 1
Mike Hurley

Subject: The CT Study
Good morning.
Tonight I will email you the first part of the piece, the section on Nixon and Ford. The entire report is longer than I
had expected. It will easily come in at 45,000 words instead of the original 30,000 words. Late tomorrow or by
mid-day Friday, I will email the next big chunk of it to you, the Carter and Reagan sections. By late Sunday, you
will have the Bush section and the JFK-LBJ introduction.
I hope this submission schedule works for you.
Tim.
3/10/2004
Page 1 of 1
Mike Hurley
From: Tucker, David USA [dctucker@nps.navy.mil]

Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 3:47 PM
To: Mike Hurley
Subject: US CT 93-98
Mike - here it is. Consider this a draft. If I have more time, I will polish it a bit. I also need to get
some comments from the people I interviewed and maybe from some others.
David
3/10/2004
Page 1 of 1
Mike Hurley
From: Tucker, David USA [dctucker@nps.navy.mil]

Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 12:34 PM
To: Mike Hurley
Subject: report
Mike - I have a draft done. I am letting it sit for a couple of days while I track down some references. I found
Ghost Wars helpful but going through it and then tracking down some of the documents it mentioned took some
extra time. I will e-mail the report to you on Friday.
David
3/3/2004
Page 1 of2
Mike Hurley
From: Mike Hurley

Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 7:19 PM
To: Tucker, David USA1
Cc: Mike Hurley
Subject: RE: query
David,
Sounds like a good plan.
I'll give you a call in the next day or two.
Mike
Original Message
From: Tucker, David USA [mailto:dctucker@nps.navy.mil]
To: Mike Hurley
Cc: Warren Bass; Bonnie Jenkins
Subject: RE: query
Mike - The only objection from NFS was me getting paid by the Commission. As I understand it, VADM
Moore could talk about the years leading up to 1998, my cut off date. I think the big problem is timing. A
request to DoD and setting the meeting up, assuming Moore would agree, would probably take more time
than I have. I think it would be good to talk to Moore but won't pursue it now. After the commission
wraps up, I can contact him as an NPS faculty member.
David
Original Message
From: Mike Hurley [mailto:mhurley@9-llcommission.gov]
To: Tucker, David USA
Cc: Warren Bass; Bonnie Jenkins
Subject: RE: query
Hi David:
Thanks for the note. As Moore is active duty, if we were to talk

to him we would be required to go through the DoD point of
contact that we use for all our DoD interviews. I'm guessing that
if you set up an interview with him and described yourself as a
consultant for the commission, he would contact someone in
JCS or OSD. We would then get a call from the Pentagon asking
us about this contact and whether we were involved. That could
get back to NPS and raise the objections that you heard from
your legal adviser last fall.
2/18/2004
Page 2 of2
I guess you need to think about how important it is for you to

talk to Moore. The Cole occurs after the period that you're
covering—'93 to '98. If he can be helpful on those years, then
it's your call. But I think we'd have to inform DoD, and they
might want to have someone present. And your session with
him would have to be limited to unclassified topics.
Let me know what you think in light of the above.
Thanks,
Mike
Original Message
From: Tucker, David USA [mailto:dctucker@nps.navy.mil]
To: Mike Hurley; hurley hot
Subject: query
Mike - My friend Chris Lamb has suggested that I talk with Vice Adm Charles W. Moore,
who was Commander of the Fifth Fleet at the time of the Cole bombing. He is now
Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (N4) (Fleet Readiness and Logistics). Will it bother the
commission if I do this? He was there for a few years before the Cole and can give some
of the background, or at least how it looked to an important person overseas. If it is ok
with the commission, how should I describe myself? Am I a consultant?
David
2/18/2004
WITHDRAWAL NOTICE
RG: 148 Exposition, Anniversary, and Memorial Commissions

SERIES: 9/11 Commission, Team 3
NND PROJECT NUMBER: 52100 FOIA CASE NUMBER: 31107
WITHDRAWAL DATE: 11/21/2008
BOX: 00004 FOLDER: 0003 TAB: 4 DOC ID: 31206915
COPIES: 1 PAGES: 1
The item identified below has been withdrawn from this file:
FOLDER TITLE: David Tucker / Tim Naftali [2of2]
DOCUMENT DATE: 02/15/2004 DOCUMENT TYPE: E-Mail Printout/(Profs Notes)
FROM: Naftali
TO: Bass /Hurley
SUBJECT:
This document has been withdrawn for the following reason(s):

9/11 Closed by Statute
WITHDRAWAL NOTICE
Message Page 1 of 1
Mike Hurley

Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 4:00 PM
Subject: Miller
Mike and Warren,
I had a very good interview with Ambassador1 Miller. He's a straight shooter and was happy to tell his story.
Now that I have pulled things together through 1992 I am eager to see what David Tucker finds from 1993-98,
when apparently the wheels fell off the CT machine.
Tim.
2/13/2004
WITHDRAWAL NOTICE
RG: 148 Exposition, Anniversary, and Memorial Commissions

SERIES: 9/11 Commission, Team 3
NND PROJECT NUMBER: 52100 FOIA CASE NUMBER: 31107
WITHDRAWAL DATE: 11/21/2008
BOX: 00004 FOLDER: 0003 TAB: 3 DOC ID: 31206914
COPIES: 1 PAGES: 2
The item identified below has been withdrawn from this file:
FOLDER TITLE: David Tucker / Tim Naftali [2of2]
DOCUMENT DATE: 02/06/2004 DOCUMENT TYPE: E-Mail Printout/fProfs Notes)
FROM: Naftali
TO: Bass
SUBJECT:
This document has been withdrawn for the following reason(s):

9/11 Closed by Statute
WITHDRAWAL NOTICE
Thomas H. Kean January 8, 2004
CHAIR
Lee H. Hamilton
VICE CHAIR
Richard Ben-Veniste
The Honorable Robert B. Oakley
Distinguished Research Fellow
Fred F. Fielding Institute for National Strategic Studies
Jamie S. Gorelick National Defense University
Fort Lesley J. McNair
Slade Gorton Washington, DC 20319-5066
Bob Kerrey
Dear Ambassador Oakley:
John F. Lehman
TimothyJ. Roemer The 9-11 Commission has asked me to undertake a study of the evolution of US
counterterrorism strategy from 1968 through 1993. This will be an unclassified study
James R. Thompson
based upon open sources, declassified records and interviews with many of the
principals from the Johnson through Bush [41] administrations. The study may be
Philip D. Zelikow
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR drawn upon for part of the Commission's report, but participation in the interviews is
purely voluntary.
I live in the District and would like to meet with you at your convenience in January
to discuss how the principals viewed the problem of counterterrorism in the Reagan
administration. One of my case studies will be on the response to Libyan support for
international terrorism and I will be examining the consequences of the Vice
President's Task Force on Counterterrorism. Mr. Carlucci, whom I have already
interviewed, recommended that I speak with you.
By way of background, I am an historian of US-Soviet relations and the history of US

intelligence, hi 1997 I co-authored "One Hell of a Gamble:" Khrushchev, Castro and
Kennedy, 1958-1964, which was published by W. W. Norton. I am currently writing
the George H. W. Bush biography for the American Presidents series.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
Timothy J. Naftali
Historical Consultant to the
9-11 Commission
TEL (202) 331-4060

FAX (202) 296-5545
www.9-11 rommis.'iion.s'ov
Thomas H. Kean January 8,2004
CHAIR
Lee H. Hamilton
VICE CHAIR
Mr. Richard F. Stolz
Richard Ben-Veniste
9/11 Personal P r i v a c y
Fred F. Fielding
Jamie S. Gorelick
Dear Mr. Stolz:
Slade Goiton
Bob Kerrey The 9-11 Commission has asked me to undertake a study of the evolution of US
John F. Lehman based upon open sources, declassified records and interviews with many of the
TimothyJ. Roemer principals from the Johnson through Bush [41] administrations. The study may be
drawn upon for part of the Commission's report, but participation in the interviews is
James R. Thompson
purely voluntary.
Philip D.Zelikow Judge Webster was kind enough to give me your address. He suggested that I meet
EXECUTJVE DIRECTOR
with you to discuss the CIA's understanding of the problem of terrorism in the
Reagan and Bush [41] administrations. He believed we might be able to discuss the
Agency's successful work against the Abu Nidal Organization at the end of the
1980s. If you are available, I would be prepared to drive down to Williamsburg
sometime in January. I teach at the University of Virginia.
By way of background, I was trained by Ernest May and am an historian of US-Soviet

relations and the history of US intelligence. In 1997 I co-authored "One Hell of a
Gamble:" Khrushchev, Castro and Kennedy, 1958-1964, which was published by
W. W. Norton. I am currently writing the George H. W. Bush biography for the
American Presidents series.
Sincerely,
Timothy J. Naftali
9-11 Commission
TEL (202) 331-4060

FAX (202) 296-5545
www.9-1 Irommission.prw
CHAIR
Lee H. Hamilton
VICE CHAIR
Richard Ben-Veniste
Mr. Vincent M. Cannistraro
Fred F. Fielding
Jamie S. Gorelick
Dear Mr. Cannistraro:
Slade Gorton
Bob Kerrey The 9-11 Commission has asked me to undertake a study of the evolution of US
John F. Lehrrjan
Timothy J. Roemer principals from the Johnson through Bush [41] administrations. The study may be
James R Thompson
purely voluntary.
Philip D. Zelikw
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR I live in the District and would like to meet with you at your convenience in January
to discuss how the principals viewed the problem of counterterrorism in the Reagan
and Bush [41] administrations. One of my case studies will be on the response to
Libyan support for international terrorism and I will be examining the consequences
of the Vice President's Task Force on Counterterrorism.

intelligence. In 1997 I co-authored "One Hell of a Gamble:" Khrushchev, Castro
and Kennedy, 1958-1964, which was published by W. W. Norton. I am currently
writing the George H. W. Bush biography for the American Presidents series.
Sincerely,
timothy J. Naftali
9-11 Commission
TEL (202) 331-4060

FAX (202) 296-5545
www.9-11 commission.pov
CHAIR
Lee H. Hamilton
VICE CHAIR
Richard Ben-Veniste
Mr. Oliver Revell
President
Fred F. Fielding Revell Group International Inc.
Jamie S. Gorelick 36 Victoria Drive, Suite A
Rowlett, Texas 75088
Slade Gorton
Bob Kerrey Dear Mr. Revell:

John F. Lehman
The 9-11 Commission has asked me to undertake a study of the evolution of US
Timothy J. Roemer counterterrorism strategy from 1968 through 1993. This will be an unclassified study
James R. Thompson
principals from the Johnson through Bush [41 ] administrations. The study may be
Philip D. Zelikow
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR purely voluntary.
Judge Webster was kind enough to give me your address. He, former Attorney
General Edwin Meese and Judge Sessions all recommended in their meetings with
me that I try to see you. I will be in Texas at the end of January to do research at the
Bush Library and would make arrangements to meet you, should you be available. I
would like to talk to you about your role in shaping the Reagan and Bush [41]
administration's approach to counterterrorism. My case studies include the response
to Libyan support for international terrorism, the development of the CTC, and the
capture of Fawaz Younis. I will also be examining the consequences of the Vice
President's Task Force on Counterterrorism.

intelligence. In 1997 I co-authored "One Hell of a Gamble:" Khrushchev, Castro
and Kennedy, 1958-1964, which was published by W. W. Norton. I am currently
writing the George H. W. Bush biography for the American Presidents series.
Sincerely,
Timoftly J. Naftali
9-11 Commission
TEL (202) 331-4060

FAX (202) 296-5545
www.9-11 rommission.pov
Page 1 of 2
Marquittia Coleman
From: Warren Bass

Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 6:48 PM
To: 'tjn3y@virginia.edu'
Cc: Steve Dunne; Chris Kojm; Mike Hurley; Marquittia Coleman
Subject: Naftali letters to Oakland Cannistraro
Your two draft letters look fine to us, Tim—both Team 3 and our Front Office. And please send us drafts of the
other two letters (Stoltz and Revell) as well, and well get them approved.
I'm afraid that our budget just won't permit any more travel on this, but we trust phone interviews will get the job
done.
We're looking forward to seeing your report. I know you'll hit your deadline even without me nagging again, but
we're just so busy that we can't afford to miss the deadline for your work by even the tiniest bit, so I herewith nag
again. (You feel our pain, I'm sure.)
Marquittia, please be in touch with me and Tim if there's anything else you need to get the letters out the door.
Thanks, all.
Warren
—Original Message—
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 11:26 AM
To: Warren Bass
Cc: Mike Hurley; Marquittia Coleman; naftali@virginia.edu
Subject: Oakler and Cannistraro Letters
Dear Warren,
Here are the Oakley and Cannistraro letters.
I had very useful meetings with Edwin Meese on Monday and Admiral Turner and Judge Webster
yesterday. Mr. Meese and Judge Webster suggested that I meet with Oliver "Buck" Revell who
was the FBI's point man on CT in the Reagan and Bush periods. Judge Webster also suggested
Richard Stoltz his deputy at CIA who knows more about the operation against the Abu Nidal
group in 1988-1990. Meese said he would send me Revell's address in Houston and Webster will
give me Stoltz's telephone number. Both will make introductions for me, if I need them. May I
send formal letters to these individuals, as well?
Thanks for your help on this. I hope it will prove helpful for you in the end.
Tim.
Timothy J. Naftali
Director
2201 Old Ivy Road
12/16/2003
.age Page 1 of 1
Marquittia Coleman

Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 3:25 PM
To: Warren Bass
Cc: Marquittia Coleman; Mike Hurley
Subject: Revell
Dear Warren,
Judge Webster's office just gave me Revell's address in Texas and I am now submitting the text of the letter for
approval. I am hopeful of seeing Revell when I go to Texas for Bush Library research at the end of January.
Should the Commission not have the funds to pay for the sidetrip to Dallas, I would understand. In that case,
however, I would pay for the sidetrip myself. He was the chief of the FBI's CT operations throughout the 1980s.
Best,
Tim.
c.c Mike, Marquittia.
Timothy J. Naftali
Director
2201 Old Ivy Road
PO Box 400406
12/19/2003
Page 1 of 1
Marquittia Coleman

Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 11:26 AM
To: Warren Bass
Cc: Mike Hurley; Marquittia Coleman; naftali@virginia.edu
Subject: Oakler and Cannistraro Letters
Dear Warren,
Here are the Oakley and Cannistraro letters.
I had very useful meetings with Edwin Meese on Monday and Admiral Turner and Judge Webster yesterday. Mr.
Meese and Judge Webster suggested that I meet with Oliver "Buck" Revell who was the FBI's point man on CT in
the Reagan and Bush periods. Judge Webster also suggested Richard Stoltz his deputy at CIA who knows more
about the operation against the Abu Nidal group in 1988-1990. Meese said he would send me Revell's address in
Houston and Webster will give me Stoltz's telephone number. Both will make introductions for me, if I need them.
May I send formal letters to these individuals, as well?
Thanks for your help on this. I hope it will prove helpful for you in the end.
Tim.
Timothy J. Naftali
Director
2201 Old Ivy Road
PO Box 400406
12/12/2003

T3 B9 David Tucker - Tim Naftali 2 of 2 FDR - Emails - Letters - Withdrawal Notices (See SD B3 Interviews FDR For Earlier Naftali Invitation Letters)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

T3 B9 David Tucker - Tim Naftali 2 of 2 FDR - Emails - Letters - Withdrawal Notices (See SD B3 Interviews FDR For Earlier Naftali Invitation Letters)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mail:: INBOX: Changes to Proposed Agreement with Tim Naftali and David Tucker Page 1 of 1

84.01 MB / 476.84MB (17.62%)

Philip agreed to compensate each of them a fee-for-task of $15,000 for their

In addition, each pointed out that it will be essential to their work to

For Chris Kojm: Pending Philip's decision on this, for budget-tracking

Decisions for Philip:

1} Request approval to increase to $20,000 each the fee-for-task the

2) Request approval to budget travel funds of $5,000 each for Naftali

79.30MB / 476.84MB (16.63%)

I read your note. Well done. I approve your recommendation on how to

I had a long and extremely pleasant telephone conversation with Tim

I'm sending this email only to you because I would like to

I had a long and most agreeable telephone conversation with

I went over the task description with Tim in our

Compensation: You approved $15,000 payment each to Naftali

Philip, it makes perfectly good sense to me that we fund

I'd like to suggest the following: 1) we approve a $20,000

So, I'm asking your approval for the higher fee-for-task

Tim had another good point. He knows he will not be

It was a pleasure talking to Tim. He's clearly a smart guy

Philip, I apologize for the length of this note, but I know

76.48MB / 476.84MB (16.04%)

Quoting Tracy Shycoff <tshycoff@9-llcommission.gov>:

Mike -- your reply is a thoughtful one. Please proceed as you indicate.

Quoting "" <mhurley@9-llcommission.gov>:

> > Quoting "" <mhurley@9-llcommission.gov>:

> > > Philip,

> > > (Naftali)

> > > (Tucker)

http ://kinesis. swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?Horde=6e3 f79a9f02ffce501 efa47a9c... 8/8/03

¥i 49.59MB /476.84MB (10.40%)

The Commission wants you to examine U.S. counterterrorism policy during th

We are particularly interested in the evolution of U.S. counterterrorism xiM/

> and how did they coordinate with each other?

> Finally, we seek your assessment of the effectiveness of overall U.S.

> In addition to answering these questions, please provide additional analysis

49.38MB / 476.84MB (1 0.36%)

Quoting Tracy Shycoff <tshycof f @9-llcommission.gov> :

> > Begin Text of Tucker and Naftali writing descriptions

and how did they coordinate with each other?

> > We are particularly interested in the evolution of U.S. counterterrorism

44.56MB / 476.84MB (9.35%)

^ 1.2 unnamed text/html 9.40 KB ^

Forwarded message from " " <ckojm@9-11 commission.gov>

Quoting " " <pzelikow@9-11commission.gov>:

more money if you need to.

PhilipQuoting " " <mhurley@9-11 commission.gov>:

we think there is a need for a historical review of U.S. Counterterrorism

principal thrust of what Team 3 is doing—looking at Counterterrorism

will be important material for an annex to the report. More on the

Our proposal is that we ask Tim Naftali to do a monograph on U.S.

credentials he was a very serious practitioner/policy operator both in CIA

Why do we need this?

How much should they be paid?

each of them up to $25,000 for a 50,000-word monograph. That figure came

$15,000 for a 30,000-word monograph. But I defer to Philip and you.

Request a decision to proceed with the above plan.

was placed on hold pending review of the Commission's budget.) Again, if

End forwarded message

I 2 Naftali and Tucker descriptions.doc application/msword 31.52 KB

The final draft should be delivered to the Commission by December 1, 2003.

The final draft should be delivered to the Commission by December 1 , 2003.