• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
.
IVD.
icitiii
o
vvuiKpiau
rage
i
ui
u
'i
<-
t
nv
brook
Tasks
Memos
Calendar Logout OpenFoidt
2.47MB / 476.84MB
(0.52%)
INBOX:
RE:
Team
8
Workpian
(3 of 70)
M
0
ve!Co
Py
l
Thismessa
s
eto
«
Delete
|
Reply
|
Reply
to
All
|
Forward
|
Redirect
|
Blacklist
|
Message
Source
|
Resume
|
Save
as |
Back
to
INBOX
^
Print
^
Date:
Tue,
22 Apr
2003 23:06:57 -0400
From:
PhilipZelikow <pzelikow@9-11
commission.gov>^
T°
mkara@9-11commission.gov4J, ckojm@9-11
commission.gov^G
C:
dhyde@9-11
commission.gov^,
jfarmer@9-11
commission.gov^,
dmarcus@9-11
commission.gov^,
'Stephanie
Kaplan'
<skaplan@9-11commission.gov>4f
Reply-to:
pzelikow@9-1
Icommission.gov^f
Subject:
RE:Team8Workpian
Folks
--
There seems
to be a bit of
a
misunderstanding about
the
questions
I
listed.
We
are
obliged
to recount the immediate response of the nation's leaders
to
the attack. We don't get to pick and choose in describing what theydid. They
did the
picking
and
choosing.
We have
the
obligation
to
recapture
that-
But
we do
have some choice about
the
extent
to
which
we
analyze
those
responses-
What are the criteria for our attention? Historical
significance?
Likelihood that comparable challenges might
be
facedagain! perhaps
if
there
is
another
attack?
Contingent character
of the
judgments?
Our interest in the issue?Chris offered
one
useful
map to
that
set of
choices.
I
appreciate
Miles'
reluctancen
but!
perhaps
unfortunately:
--
I
thinkwe'lldiscover that
all of
these decisions were made
at the
level
of
White House principals.-- The decisions about when to go to
NYCi
or how/whether to do an
airline
bailout!
and the
linked
decision
on the
victims compensation
fund
were described as things presidents do
anyway-
I think if you look
into
the substance of these
issues!
you may come to a different
conclusion-
There are several totally unprecedented features to the
latter
two
choices!
which were
linked-
Incidentally!
no one at the
time thought these
*MD
billion plus worth
of
nearly instantaneous decisions wereaforegone conclusion.-- The decision to create a White House Office of Homeland Security and
appoint
Ridge
was not "already in the works and accelerated by
T/11-"
Even though
there
had
been
a GAO
report about
it.-- The
assistance
in
reopening financial markets
did
indeed involve
White
House principals! and was not
simply
the work of the
SECi
though
Treasury
(Peter Fisher) played
a key
role-
-- Thereturnof
civil
aviationwasabout much more thanthereopening
of
Reagan
National
and
required
the
overnight national reversal
of
aviation security policies that
had
seemed
sacrosanct
for
years-Borderswerenotclosed!but keydecisions were made about borderand
port
security
measures-
http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?index=180 4/23/03
 
man ..
iiNDvyyv.
i\_c,.
icam
o
vvuiKpimi
rage
z.
ui
u
-- The NATO
AblACS
decision is an interesting suggestion* It was an
inspired
initiative from
Brussels!
and especially Ambassador
Burns-
-- I
also omitted
the
decision about
when!
or
whether*!
the
President
should
return to PC on
1/11-— And
what decisions might
we
judge should have been
made! or
addressedi
but were
not?
My
main point is that we have a minimum responsibility with
respect
to
chronicling
these
decisions-!
unlesswe
limit
our
scope
intime onlytotheevents
on
T/11
itself-
Our
wider responsibility
deserves some
serious
reflection!
and we may wish to engage commissioners in thisprocess•
Philip
Original
MessageFrom: mkaraaT-llcommission.gov Cmailto.mkaraaT-llcommission.gov}
Sent:
Tuesday-,
April
EB-,
EDQ3
3:17
PM
To:
ckojmaT-llcommission•govCc:
pzelikowaT-llcommission-govidhydeSll-llcommission.govijfarmer3T-llcommission-govi
dmarcusSH-llcommission-gov'!
'Stephanie
Kaplan'
Subject: Re: Team fi UorkplanI've done some thinking aboutthelistandoffertheattachedtomove
the
conversation
forward-Miles
Quoting
ckojmaT-llcommission.gov:
>
To All -- I am wondering whether some of these questions are just
plain
>
beyond
>
our
time
and
ability
to
address-
No one
would criticize
us for
taking
>
them oni
but I
wonder
if our
effort isn't better focused
on
central
>
questions-
>
I see
questions
1
through
7 as
central-
Questions
fl-i 12 and 13
(money for
>>
NYCi
airline
bailouti
compensation funds) are policy questions that Isee
>
beyond>
the
scope
of a
mandate that
we
prudently should
pursue->
>
Questions
10 and 11 are
questions-!
fundamentally!
ofpolicy
response!
instead
> of>
emergency
response-
They don't comfortably
fit in any
singleteam's
boxi
but>> are a mix of
Teams
3 and
t>!
it
seems
to
me-
Ue
probably should
decide
early
>
on
>
which
team
has
primary
responsibility
for
looking
at the
overall
concept of>
OHS> and then
DHS
(I would recommend Team
b)!
understanding that importantparts
>
of
http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?index=1804/23/03
 
mail
..
UNDWvY.
JSJi.
ICeUH
O
VVUlJVplclli
rilgC
J
Ul
U
> it
(the
INS pieces) are for Team
S-
>
>(Suestions 1M
a 15 are
very important!
and I
agree with Phil that these
are
>
probably
best addressed by Team
tn
with an important role for Team S
on
>
question(detentionofMuslim males)as
well-
>
Overalln
I think Team fl's workplan is very
goodi
and
represents
a lot
of
>
thoughtful
work-
dy comments on the Team fl workplan would include:
>
>
The need for a shorteri crisper list of
questions!
based on theCommission
'
s
>
>
advice
(Hamilton's advice) to
staff-
Those questions are your take ontheir
>
3
>
questions: What happened
on
T/llf
What
has
happened
since(on
national
>
leadership level emergency response planning)? What are the key> recommendations
>
youwould make(atleast articulatingthelinesofdebateand keyissues
on
>
COOP!
COGn
understanding thatwe are atrisktomake recommendationsatthis>> stage of the
gamen
but Commissioners are already thinking about the
end
> product
!! ) .
>
>
National leadership also includes Congressional
leadership-
Wecannot
tell
>
the
>
story of
national-level immediate
response without some description ofwhat
>
Congressional leaders
did or did not
do-
>
>
Alsoi
I
think
the
reading list needs
to be
much
shorter:
what
are the
b
or
fl
>
>
items that you believe Commissioners absolutely must read tounderstand your
>
>
team's mission
a
issues?
Those
readings should
be
includedn
in
descending
>
order of importance! should be readable in
E-3
hours (tops)n andshould be
>
available to Commissioners in your
notebook-
Maybe
this
approach hasalready>
>
animated
the
preparation
of
your
notebook
but I was
unclear
on this
>
point
>
>
I think the document request list and the interview list is
excellent-
>
> --
Chris>
>
Quoting Philip
Zelikow <pzel ikowST-llcommission
.
gov>
:
>
>
>
Dana and
Miles
(and
John)-
http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php
?index=l
804/23/03
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...