lessage Page 1 of 2

Mike Hurley

From: Timothy J. Naftali [tjn3y@virginia.edu]

Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 1 :02 PM
To: Mike Hurley; Warren Bass
Cc: Marquittia Coleman
Subject: Rice and the Pubic Hearing

Warren and Mike,

First, you will receive a huge file today, not that you will have time to read it but I will be glad to get it out of the
way.

Second, you asked me to think about questions about. I have read through portions of Clark's book and I have
followed the discussion in the newspapers. The only "outside" perspective I can give you - because God Knows
you are the experts in the materials of 2000-2001 -- is that somehow the public has to understand that process
matters. I say this as someone who did not always understand the importance of who was invited to a meeting in
the formulation of policy. Getting Rice to say that terrorism was a major or urgent priority is meaningless and she
can do it without perjuring herself. The fact of the matter is that since 1972 all administrations have seen terrorism
as important and we know how little that meant in practice. But NSC chiefs have differed in the importance they
gave the issue. Most have considered it a secondary threat (Kissinger, Scowcroft, Brzezinski, Allen,
Clark, Carlucci, Powell, Scowcroft). Only McFarlane and Poindexter saw it as an urgent matter. Carlucci
described the difference between their understanding and his. "Terrorism was a problem," he recalled for me, "it
was not a war."

a) Pre- 9/1 1 , was terrorism a problem or a war for Rice? I think I know the answer but she should go on record as
to why after the events of 1998-2000 she did not go to war with UBL as the US had done with Abu Nidal in 1987-
89.

b) Why did she demote the CT Coordinator? Here the issue is process. My CNN friends always tell me that
Americans get bored with process. Here is a case where the devil is in the details. It would be a public service for
Rice to explain why such an important matter was coordinated by the Bush team at a lower level before 9/1 1 than
it had been under Clinton. It is important to keep in mind that under Clinton the CT coordinator had more regular
access to POTUS than ever before. North's access to Reagan was much more sporadic and after North there
was no CT player who could meet with all of the principals. In any case, in the Reagan period, the National
Security Advisor was the real CT chief and so the top was always aware of the major initiative.

c) Someone should ask her why missile defense was considered more of a threat than terrorism. This could lead
in useful directions for public understanding of the administration. If she says "it wasn't," then someone could
contrats the Admin's energetic efforts in that field in early 2001 to its record on terrorism.

d) Finally, and this is a guess on my part, but since 1986 the FBI had been trying to get changes in its capacity to
investigative work on terrorists. The CISPES case in 1988 waylaid this for a time but no doubt the FBI revisted
this question in the late 1990s. Didn't they want roving taps, for example? They had these for RICO cases but not
for terrorism cases. The Patriot Act gave it to them. Didn't the Ashcroft Justice Department seek these things as
one of its prioties in early 2001 ? They must have, indeed I suspect elements of the Patriot Act were drafts in
peoples fiels well before 9/1 1 . If the Admin was so concerned about terrorism how was it handling these requests
from Justice before 9/1 1 ?

d) Domestic security is the black hole. Before Homland Security we did not have anyone in the system with
responsibility for it. Did Rice consider domestic security matetres part of her national security job before 9/1 1 ?

Hope these help. I will send more if they occur to me. You are doing such a great job that you most probably don't
need any of them.

4/5/2004
 lessage Page 2 of 2

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

4/5/2004