Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COPIES: 1 PAGES: 45
The item identified below has been withdrawn from this file:
FROM:
TO:
WITHDRAWAL NOTICE
WITHDRAWAL NOTICE
COPIES: 1 PAGES: 42
The item identified below has been withdrawn from this file:
FROM:
TO:
WITHDRAWAL NOTICE
WITHDRAWAL NOTICE
COPIES: 1 PAGES: 1
_ACCESS
The item identified below has been withdrawn from this file:
FROM:
TO:
WITHDRAWAL NOTICE
WITHDRAWAL NOTICE
COPIES: 1 PAGES: 27
_ACCESs
The item identified below has been withdrawn from this file:
FROM:
TO:
WITHDRAWAL NOTICE
WITHDRAWAL NOTICE
COPIES: 1 PAGES: 56
The item identified below has been withdrawn from this file:
FROM:
TO:
WITHDRAWAL NOTICE
Page 1 of 1
Mike Hurley
Teammies:
Tim Roemer stopped by for a 15 minute chat before the Commission meeting began. He
said he had some concerns about Chapter 5. His points follow:
Page 7: There's a reference to an al Qaeda planes' operation in January 2000. The U.S.
had a "fleeting glimpse" into aQ's preparation for this operation. Tim found the
"fleeting glimpse" language to be a dig against the Clinton administration.
Page 10: A discussion of the Gingrich supplemental to CIA. Tim thinks there should be
more on George Tenet's approach, on what he was doing.
Page 11: Similar to above point. There's a statement that the CIA remained under
funded for any real attack on al Qaeda. Tim believes this is absolving CIA from its
responsibilities. It's reducing everything to a question of resources and funding. He
wands to see more on leadership and management at CIA. How did CIA's leaders
manage the funds, what priorities did they target money against.
Page 17: Near the top of the page. Deals with UBL and the Cole. There's a statement to
the effect that they had not hit him yet; he wished they would; he was perhaps thinking
this would enhance his prestige. This refers to UBL. Tim wants to know how anyone
knows what he was "perhaps thinking." What is this based on? Isn't it just totally
interpretative.
Page 23: dispute over delay in transition during election controversy. Text says the
dispute cut by half the transition period. And that it exacerbated the rancorous
partisanship of the Clinton era. Tim thinks the "rancorous partisanship" is highly
judgmental.
Transition: Tim thinks the draft of Chapter 5 doesn't sufficiently highlight the change in
Clarke's status (being bounced from the PC, being unable to call a PC). Tim also wants
to see the Roger Cressey quote of Clarke—"there goes our ability to get quick
decisions"—included.
Text on the Millennium: Says the principals met more often than normal during the
millennium. Tim thinks this understates the involvement of principals. Berger told us
the small group principals met every day in the run up to the millennium. Does the text
refer to Principals Committee meetings, or to principals' small group meetings? If the
latter, then the phrase "met more often than normal," likely does understate the
frequency of meetings.
Mike
6/14/2004
Page 1 of 1
Mike Hurley
Stephanie:
It's come to our attention that there are some major differences between the texts (not just copy edits
but rewritten passages) in the 06/08/04 version of Chapter 5 (which you sent us on 06/11) and the
06/07/04 version (sent on 06/07).
As we're going through the chapter fixing footnotes and offering comments to the FO we just want to
make sure we're all working off the same version. Ideally this would be the latest version, but perhaps
most practical would be to work off the version sent to Commissioners.
Alexis
6/14/2004
Page 1 of 1
Mike Hurley
Please note that when Ernest May edited Chapter 5, he rolled into Section
5.4 some text that Warren had drafted for Section 5.5. I defer to Warren's
review of footnotes related to that material.
Thanks,
Mike
6/11/2004
Page 1 of 1
Mike Hurley
Attached please find a draft of Chapter 5 containing my edits to Section 5.4. I used "track changes" to highlight a
couple of additions to the footnotes. The footnotes aligned with the text. But portions of the footnotes had been
chopped. And a couple of the footnotes, as edited, were misleading. I've tried to make the necessary corrections.
While I drafted much of 5.4., Ernest May rolled into that section a couple of pages that Warren had drafted for
Section 5.5. I defer to Warren for comments on footnotes connected to text that he drafted.
Thanks,
Mike
6/11/2004
Page 1 of 1
Mike Hurley
Team 3:
Attached is the copyedited version of Chapter 5. PLEASE do not accept or reject changes made by Alice. ONLY
use this version to check footnotes. DO NOT add textual edits at this stage UNLESS it relates to the fixing the
footnotes. We will review Alice's edits (and yours) at a later date.
The goal here is to get one draft with correct footnotes, after which we can address grammatical and substantive
edits. Mixing the two at this stage will thoroughly confuse my feeble brain.
Thanks,
Stephanie
—Original Message
From: Alice Falk
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 2:54 PM
To: Stephanie Kaplan
Subject: RE: Chapters 5
Stephanie,
Here's 5.
Alice
6/11/2004
Page 1 of 1
Mike Hurley
Just a reminder that we owe Steve Dunne a review of the footnoting of our respective
sections of Chapter 5.
Thanks,
Mike
Original Message
From: Mike Hurley
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 10:37 AM
To: Warren Bass; Alexis Albion; Nicole Grandrimo; Sarah Linden
Cc: Mike Hurley; Steve Dunne; Stephanie Kaplan
Subject: Footnotes for Chapter 5
Sarah/Niki/Warren/Alexis:
Steve Dunne asked that we review the current draft of Chapter 5 to ensure that the
footnote (endnote) numbers in the text match up with the footnotes or endnotes
themselves.
Stephanie sent the latest version of Chapter 5 (as of 6/7) to each of you via classified
email. Please work off that text and review the footnoting in your respective sections of
5 to see that everything lines up.
Steve would like to hear from us by COB Wednesday June 9 on the status of the
Chapter 5 footnotes. This review will help the "footnote team" do its work once the
chapter is put into its hands for footnote formatting.
Thanks,
Mike
l/'fc-
6/9/2004