NewsMine — coldwar-imperialism — iran-contra — north-emails — Viewing Item

CHAP07 FROM: NSWRP --CPUA TO: NSPBT --CPUA 10/04/85 20:45:56 To: NSPBT --CPUA *** Reply to note of 10/04/85 20:35 NOTE FROM: BOB PEARSON Subject: Barnes/Hamilton letters Thanks - I would like to review the file because I am sure the issue will come up again, in some other context, if not this one. Why are you here at 8:45 instead of drinking strawberry daquiris (sp) in some hotel bar? Thanks. MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSDRF --CPUA 11/06/85 15:55:48 To: NSDRF --CPUA *** Reply to note of 11/06/85 08:14 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH Subject: Hill Don, I am more than a little disturbed by yr note for the following reasons: (1) I have had no "recent appearances" on the hill (2) At what is referred to as "early middle age" I have few illusions about the meaning of the word "friends." I would point out that if these persons were friends, they would have called me, not you. Given the points above, it would be good if we talked. There is much to be done and very little timein which to do it. This kind of business simply impedes progress when we need it most. c Hill MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSRKS --CPUA 12/13/85 13:31:41 To: NSRKS --CPUA *** Reply to note of 12/13/85 10:53 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH Subject: C-T Senate Support Have generated a fellow who does some work for a farm COOP in Harkins home base. Have also tried to generate some addl support fm friends in the Senate on this issue. Let me know if we need to give talking points to others to use. C-T Senate Support MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSFH --CPUA 12/17/85 14:00:00 To: NSFH --CPUA -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH Subject: JMP call on counterterrorism *** Forwarding note from NSRKS --CPUA 12/17/85 13:58 *** To: NSOLN --CPUA *** Resending note of 12/17/85 13:56 To: NSFEG --CPUA NOTE FROM: Lynn S. Sachs SUBJECT: JMP calls on counterterrorism Ollie mentioned this morning that he was sending talking points to JMP for calls to senators on the central america counterterrorism legislation. I believe he will be recommending calls to Dole, Lugar and possibly Inouye. I don't know if Ollie will recommend a sequence for the calls or not -- but it is very important that Lugar be called first. Lugar has been very helpful on this issue and has been trying hard to bring the bill up on the Senate floor. JMP should ask Lugarfo his advise before proceeding with the additional calls. Please keep us apprised. CC: NSRKS --CPUA Z JMP call on counterterrorism FROM: NSWRP --CPUA TO: NSPBT --CPUA 02/14/86 16:22:40 To: NSRBM --CPUA -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: BOB PEARSON Subject: Intel Oversight FYI *** Forwarding note from NSDRF --CPUA 02/14/86 12:39 *** To: NSWRP --CPUA *** Reply to note of 02/14/86 12:27 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: DONALD R. FORTIER Subject: Intel Oversight SECRET Vince, thanks for the lucid explanation. Please do meet with them and try to smooth this over. We need waters as calm as possible for the submission of our contra request. If you don't mind, say it is in follow-up to the questions they raised with me yesterday. Also, ask Ron to explain to you what they told us yesterday about the Angolan finding that we are about to send up and what effect this is likely to have on the contra vote. I need to see if we have any flexibility on this. Many thanks. cc: NSPBT --CPUA FROM: NSWRP --CPUA TO: NSPBT --CPUA 02/28/86 19:17:38 To: NSJMP --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER NSDRF --CPUA DONALD FORTIER NOTE FROM: BOB PEARSON Subject: Saudi arms From Stark. *** Forwarding note from NSJRS --CPUA 02/28/86 19:02 *** To: NSRBM --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER NSWRP --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER NSRBM --CPUA DONALD FORTIER NSWRP --CPUA DONALD FORTIER NOTE FROM: JAMES R. STARK SUBJECT: Saudi arms Lynn Sachs is checking with Lugar's staff on the basis of his optimistic assessment. Hope to have an answer shortly. Again, I suspect Lugar made a seat of the pants judgement. If he had taken a head count, he would have gone to Dole at some point, and he obviously did not. On the idea of notifying the whole package, then dropping MSIP, ALQ-171, and Blackhawks, I am pessimistic because: - the pressure wd be to drop out the missiles. - whatever was dropped out would be next to impossible to notify later this year. - it makes the President look weak and would be interpreted exactly that way in the Mideast. Have checked with Dick Murphy who also agrees we should not withdraw part of the package for the above reasons. cc: NSJC --CPUA NSRKS --CPUA NSLSS --CPUA cc: NSJRS --CPUA NSPBT --CPUA NSKKS --CPUA MSG FROM: NSJMP --CPUA TO: NSRCM --CPUA 03/04/86 16:51:07 To: NSRCM --CPUA BUD MCFARLANE -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: JOHN POINDEXTER SUBJECT: MISSIONS STILL NO WORD FROM THE IRANIANS ON A DATE. NEW SUBJECT. John Tower has submitted his letter of resignation effective 1 April. We have not made that public yet. Is that something you would be interested in? MISSIONS FROM: NSJMP --CPUA TO: NSKED --CPUA 03/06/86 20:01:37 To: NSKED --CPUA KEN DEGRAFFENREID -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: JOHN POINDEXTER SUBJECT: INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT VP AND I HAD AN INTERESTING MEETING THIS MORNING WITH DURENBERGER. NOT SURE IF WE MADE ANY PROGRESS, BUT THE MARKER IS CLEARLY LAYED DOWN THAT WE ARE WATCHING VERY CAREFULLY. HE VIEWS THE SSCI OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY TO COVER EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COVERT ACTION IN CARRYING OUT THE GIVEN POLICY AS WELL AS THE LEGALITY OF OVERSIGHT. HE AS CHAIRMAN ACCEPTS THE POLICY AS A GIVEN. HE RECOGNIZES THAT IS NOT THE COMTE'S PURVIEW PLEASE REVIEW THE HISTROY OF THE OVERSIGHT ISSUE TO SEE IF THE EFFECTIVENESS FEATURE IS SUPPORTED BY THE LEGISLATION OR ITS HISTORY. cc: NSVMC --CPUA VINCE CANNISTRARO NSPBT --CPUA PAUL THOMPSON NSRBM --CPUA ROD MCDANIEL FROM: NSRBM --CPUA TO: NSJMP --CPUA 03/06/86 20:41:05 To: NSJMP --CPUA *** Reply to note of 03/06/86 20:01 NOTE FROM: ROD B. MCDANIEL Subject: INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT A thought for future use (w/Dole, or ?)--if Durenberger were an NSC employee, his family history, as reported in the W. Post outlook article, would disqualify him from holding a security clearance. cc: NSPBT --CPUA MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSJMP --CPUA 03/11/86 22:39:03 To: NSJMP --CPUA *** Reply to note of 08/31/85 13:26 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH Subject: PRIVATE BLANK CHECK Ref the Presidential speech for Sunday: Am very concerned that we may be coming to a serious problem w/ the televised speech. In accord w/ earlier guidance, we worked very closely w/ Ben Elliot to build a speech aimed at Congressional passage of the President's proposal to the Congress. With some tinkering, the draft Ben provided will do just that. It is aimed at the Congress -- thru the American people - and presents the issues in terms that they grasp in a non-partisan way on an issue of extraordinary national security importance. For whatever reason, Pat Buchanan had Tony Dolan do another draft. This alternative version is long on fear, anecdotal remarks and no clear end -- except that the Democrats should be blamed when it goes wrong. It practically assumes that the initiative will be voted down. I believe -- right or wrong -- that we have a group at work here who are more intent on the 1988 elections than a democratic outcome in Nicaragua. You know that I feel very strongly about this -- or I wd not bother you by coming directly to you. I believe that this may well be our last chance to keep from having our sons -- and maybe you and I -- go to war in Central America. If we lose this vote because others were more intent on blaming the Democratic party/liberals for a disaster, this country will truly suffer irreparable damage. With some work, Ben Elliott's version of the Sunday speech will be an extraordinary help to a victory on the hill next week. I do not believe Tony's version will help us achieve this end. It may help the conservative cause in the 88 elections but it won't help prevent the introduction of U.S. forces in 1990 after everything has been lost in CentAm. Wd you pls look at both versions. I will go to work hard on whichever approach you direct, but wd vy much appreciate yr. views. Warm regards, North PRIVATE BLANK CHECK MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSJMP --CPUA 03/12/86 22:22:29 To: NSJMP --CPUA *** Reply to note of 08/31/85 13:26 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH Subject: PRIVATE BLANK CHECK Follow up to yr last re the speech: Talked w/ Pat. He seems adamant. He has made some mods to the Dolan draft but insists we need a "highly emotional" presentation that indicts the Libs/Dems. Am more concerned than ever that we are headed down the wrong path with victory well within our grasp. Privately Pat is portraying the Skelton approach as capitulation. Well recognizing the practical limits of both power and time, I believe that if you can you should ask DTR not to send the Dolan draft to RR tomorrow as planned. Salient points: -- the two speeches are entirely different approaches; Elliott's lays out a structured presentation of the FACTS and the strategic threat as the Pres requested last Weds. Dolan's is a highly charged emotional appeal. -- If both speeches are to go forward, they must be read separately in their entirity. They are both so structurally different that I cannot find a way to stuff facts from Ben's into Tony's. -- Ben's version really does put the greatest pressure on the Congress without being inflammatory. We've gotten good milage out of the Buchanan piece on who supports America vs. who supports commies. The President is, and must stay above that. -- Finally, in the for what it's worth dept - Kissinger stopped by for a chat this afternoon. I took the liberty of asking for his thoughts. In the four years I've known him I never heard him say "good" until today. His comment (after making some useful improvements - which we have incorporated) was "this is very good -it is just the right approach." Pls, if possible, talk to DTR before he sends the Dolan version fwd tomorrow. If you think it wd help, I wd be willing to talk to him. Wm regards, North PRIVATE BLANK CHECK MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSWR --CPUA 03/13/86 21:05:57 To: NSWR --CPUA *** Reply to note of 03/13/86 14:25 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH Subject: Cong Ralph Regula (R/Ohio) This problem has been taken care of. No more radio ads aimed at Regula. Could not, however predict results if he votes the wrong way on Weds. Cong Ralph Regula (R/Ohio) FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSFH --CPUA 04/02/86 17:41:34 To: NSFH --CPUA -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH Subject: Barnes trip to the Contadora Meetings Please print. *** Forwarding note from NSLSS --CPUA 04/02/86 13:19 *** To: NSRBM --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER NSWRP --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER NSRBM --CPUA DONALD FORTIER NSWRP --CPUA DONALD FORTIER NOTE FROM: Lynn S. Sachs SUBJECT: Barnes trip to the Contadora Meetings Barnes is planning to go to the Contadora Meetings this weekend. It is now apparent that he may be talking with other members about joining him -- Slattery, Richardson, Jeffords and Ridge. Talked to Will Ball about this and White House Legislative Affairs have talked to a number of our Republican friends. While it is clear that we will undoubtedly not be able to turn the trip off we do want to be on the record that we think Congressional participation/ observation is inappropriate! State has suggested that the President write to the Speaker asking him to "rein Barnes in". Will agrees that Presidential involvement is not necessary and recommend someone at State (Abrams) call Barnes to express our concerns. If Barnes is still determined to make the trip the Shultz will contact either the Speaker or Fascell to get on the record that the trip is a bad idea. Politically we think Barnes may get so far out on a limb on this that his colleagues (Democrats and Republicans) will think that he has mingled where he does not belong. From a substantive point of view, though Barnes' presence could cause problems. cc: NSOLN --CPUA NSRFB --CPUA NSRKS --CPUA Barnes trip to the Contadora Meetings FROM: NSVMC --CPUA TO: NSSRS --CPUA 05/15/86 11:26:00 To: NSFEG --CPUA -- TOP SECRET/CODE WORD -- NOTE FROM: Vincent Cannistraro SUBJECT: Humphrey Meeting Flo, pls print out following for the Admiral before his 2:00 p.m. meeting with Senator Humphrey and the President: During Senator Humphrey's scheduled meeting with the President and you this afternoon, he intends to raise the following Afghan related issues: --The Geneva proximity talks. Humphrey is concerned about instrument 4 and possibility Paks will agree to Sov withdrawal schedule which will mandate immediate cutoff of our supply to Resistance, leaving Sovs free to find a pretext to stall their withdrawal. (Some of us on the staff are also concerned). --He will raise Pak refusal to facilitate movement of Soviet POW's being held by the Resistance. Suggest you respond we are working this closely to facilitate movement of SOV asylum requesters to the U.S., but problem has been determining eligibility- some are drug addicts- as well as Pak concern about public disclosures of their role in working with the Resistance and the U.S. It is high on our agenda, however. --Humphrey will ask the President to break relations with the Afghan government and pull out our embassy. [Four lines deleted, (b)(1)(TS/CW) exemption] --Humphrey will also recommend the President name one high level coordinator to be the "Afghan Czar" for the U.S. govt. The Senator has long felt a senior White House appointment is necessary to pull the entire U.S. govt along in tandem in order to reach our policy objectives. These T.P.s have been coordinated with Ron Sable. cc: NSPWR --CPUA NSRKS --CPUA NSSRS --CPUA FROM: NSRBM --CPUA TO: NSJMP --CPUA 05/17/86 13:13:21 To: NSJMP --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: ROD B. MCDANIEL SUBJECT: Gates and the SSCI Bob called to say he spent 10 hours yesterday in mark up. Although opposition was stronger than expected, they supported the [One line deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] Supported a $50M reserve. Protected the 87 budget (he said best in 3-4 years) and plan to fight for the full amount against the budget resolution cap with the armed services and appropriations committees. Inserted toothless wrist slap warning the administration not to act again in the face of disapproval by the intelligence committees. Throughout Durenberger acted responsibly. (I said not bad for a month on the job!) cc: NSKED --CPUA NSVMC --CPUA NSPBT --CPUA FR0M: NSWRP --CPUA TO: NSDRF --CPUA 05/19/86 19:30:27 To: NSJMP --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER NOTE FROM: BOB PEARSON Subject: "Concessions" on Saudi arms *** Forwarding note from NSJRS --CPUA 05/19/86 19:05 *** To: NSRBM --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER NSWRP --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER NSRBM --CPUA DONALD FORTIER NSWRP --CPUA DONALD FORTIER NOTE FROM: JAMES R. STARK SUBJECT: "Concessions" on Saudi arms Rod mentioned that you were not optimistic on the Saudis accepting the conditions Congress might require on some Presidential certification on Saudi arms. For the past several weeks, Sen Warner bas been circulating a possible proposal which would have the President certify that the Saudis promise to use the missiles for defensive purposes only and not to transfer them to third parties without our permission. (There may be other conditions, but these are the most important). If Congress were to make such a proposal, our job would be much simpler, since the Saudis have to agree to precisely these conditions every LOA they sign for the weapons. This makes a great figleaf for those Senators looking for an acceptable cover to change their vote. We have to be careful not to let Congress overstep itself on this. If conditions linking the sale to progress in the Arab- Israeli peace process were inserted (such as direct negotiations), the Saudis would back out. Our problem is that, in spite of Warner's efforts, the response has been underwhelming. But it remains a good idea if we can exercise some indirect control over the wording of the certification requirement. cc: NSRKS --CPUA NSLSS --CPUA cc: NSPBT --CPUA NSJRS --CPUA NSRKS --CPUA NSDRF --CPUA DONALD FORTIER MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSJMP --CPUA 06/16/86 23:21:27 To: NSJMP --CPUA *** Reply to note of 06/05/86 15:15 NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH Subject: HOSTAGES It wd be helpful for you, I think, to hear from LtG Moellering and Dewey on this before they do something rash and this thing leaks. Had set a 15min mtg w/ you for last week and we had to scrub for a conflict. Both Dewey and Moellering out of town after 1300 Weds. Can Iset a time w/ Flo btwn now and then - 20min max? FOLLOW ON TO OUR MARITIES[?] DISC.: Have just returned from 1 hr mtg. w/ McCurdy. Bottom line: All items negotiable except absolute minimum on aid to CentAm Democracies will probably work out to abt. 300M - well down from his earlier $500M. He agrees keeping NHAC will not work and is willing to give on issues such as timimg of weaps deliveries, etc. Basically he just wants someone to pay attention to him. He wants to keep role as "broker" btwn conservatives/ liberals and Dems/Reps. At bottom is ego. It might be worth it to have me tell him that a mtg w/ you might be possible if he becomes more reasonable on things such as second votes, etc. pls protect my mtg from our legislative folks. They will go crazy. Stay tuned to Israeli TV - should be good if it lives up to advance billing. Warm regards & good night. North BT HOSTAGES FROM: NSRKS --CPUA TO: NSJMP --CPUA 06/26/86 11:13:17 To: NSJMP --CPUA *** Reply to note of 06/25/86 20:49 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: Ron Sable Subject: Contra Vote JUST TO FOLLOW UP,WITH THE HOME PORTING ISSUE TAKING UP AN INORDINATE AMOUNT OF TIME,TEMPERATURES WERE HIGH PRIOR TO OUR GETTING INTO THE MCCURDY_EDWARDS DEBATE.WHAT IS MOST REMARKABLE ABOUT THE DEBATE ITSELF, IS HOW FAR THE PROCESS HAS MOVED---CIA INVOLVEMENT WAS ONLY MENTIONED IN PASSING AND THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY AGREED ON THE NEED FOR AID TO THE RESISTANCE,DIFFERING ONLY IN APPROACH. ONCE IT WAS CLEAR THAT HAMILTONS REFUGEE AID AMENDMENT WOULD NOT PASS, WE CONCENTRATED ON THE BARNES AMENDMENT TO FORGO AID UNTIL THE ENTIRE $27M OF APPROVED AID WAS ACCOUNTED FOR.BARNES USED DISTORTION AND BOLD FACED LIES TO PRESS HIS CASE, BUT THE REPUBLICANS COUNTERED WITH HENRY HYDE-WHO WAS IN RARE FORM-USING INFORMATION WE WERE PREPARING OFF THE FLOOR TO COMBAT EVERY MOVE BY BARNES. AT ONE POINT BARNES WAS VISIBLY SHAKEN,AND SEEMED TO LOSE HIS TRAIN OF THOUGHT.ON MRAZEK, MICHEL AND TRENT LOTT DID NOT MAKE A FULL COURT PRESS, BELIEVING IT COULD BACKFIRE AND RESULT IN ANOTHER FLOOR VOTE ON EDWARDS AS THEY MOVED FROM THE COMMITTE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE TO THE FLOOR. HAVE FAITH ON THIS ONE-- IF ALL ELSE FAILS, WE WILL MOVE THE BORDER TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. AS FAR AS SENATE ACTION,THERE IS A FLURRY OF ACTIVITY ONGOING AT THIS MOMENT--DOLE IS CONSIDERING TACKING CONTRA ONTO URGENT SUPPLEMENTAL FOR FLOOR ACTION TODAY.THERE IS CONCERN HOWEVER THAT SUCH A MOYE MAY OPEN THE DOOR TO SOUTH AFRICA AND SALT AMENDMENTS.WE WILL FOLLOW UP. cc: NSPBT --CPUA NSRBM --CPUA NSLSS --CPUA NSOLN --CPUA NSRFB --CPUA NSFH --CPUA NSWRP --CPUA NSPWR --CPUA NSRBM --CPUA DONALD FORTIER NSWRP --CPUA DONALD FORTIER SECRET FROM: NSJMP --CPUA TO: NSRKS --CPUA 06/26/86 12:28:56 To: NSRKS --CPUA *** Reply to note of 06/26/86 11:13 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: JOHN POINDEXTER Subject: Contra Vote Thanks for the update. What was the final outcome on Barnes and the border amendments? FROM: NSRKS --CPUA TO: NSJMP --CPUA 06/26/86 13:25:01 To: NSJMP --CPUA *** Reply to note of 06/26/86 12:28 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: Ron Sable Subject: Contra Vote BARNES WAS REJECTED 225-198.the 'BORDER AMENDMENT" WAS MRAZEK,WHICH WE LOST 215-213.THE MEASURE WOULD PROHIBIT U.S. PERSONNEL FROM ENTERING HONDURAS OR COSTA RICA"WITHIN 20MILES OF THE NICARAGUAN BORDER_TO TRAIN OR OTHERWISE AID IN THE CONTRA FORCES".AS I MENTIONED, IF NEED BE WE WILL MOVE THE BORDER TO ACCOUNT FOR BASE CAMPS ETC. SECRET MSG FROM: NSWRP --CPUA TO: NSJMP --CPUA 06/30/86 10:02:32 To: NSJMP --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: BOB PEARSON SUBJECT: ODSM and DOM highlights Jim Miller - GRH decision expected today, said Gramm had a fix (to make Comptroller General subject to Presidential dismissal for cause). Wallison said it would not work - Justice felt was insufficient. Miller/Wallison to further coordinate. - DTR asked Miller to coordinate with you on issue how to deal with Cap in controlling 86 outlays. Jim had said 86 outlays ahead of 85 and should simpl y admit this would be case for DOD for both 86 and 87. Discussion aros e because latest monthly deficit figure ($39 Bil) is ahead of last year, due, Miller said to increased farm and DOD outlays and lowered receipts. Much interest in President's remarks at 7/3 - 4 ceremonies - DTR wants them "memorable." (They aren't to that point yet.) ODSM: Ed covered NYT/WP stories on US South Africa policy, noted we had guidance in place. Recommendation was for no comment on the Les Gelb story on INF offer in Gorbachev letter since it was so wide of the mark. KS referenced story from S.B. about possible private funding for 4th orbiter. (This was raised as DOM as "nothing new" - DTR agreed.) TC asked about exchange of messages with Shultz over attendance at Waldheim inagural & told him GPS reply in and forwarded to you. Lavin told him DTR did not oppose invitation to Vranitsky in 87 (confirmed this with Dawson who said DTR? would have recommendation for timing with NSC). DTR reported Soviets "did everything possible" to give positive tone to US/USSR discussions in Stockholm on Middle East, e.g., followed US suggested agenda, were not contentious. Believed attitude due to possible Summit more than a new approach to M.E., though Sovs showed some indication of flexibility. Re[?]port to follow. Don Gregg reported good trip to ME to prepare for VP trip 7/26 - 8/4. Israeli [?]tra-religious/secular dispute serious: [Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] Egypt - needs ambo, affairs drifting, Sofaer back for further talks. Egyptians believe he too pro-Israeli position. [word illegible] referred to EPC today on textiles and textile negotiations. Plan is to get Hong Kong, Taiwan and Korea to hold exports to US to no growth - HK and Taiwan on board, have to work on Koreans. Said US/EC tariff dispute resulting from EC enlargement still likely to be resolved - Alan Woods back today from meeting over weekend in Europe - anything new will report. NOTE: Don Jones called yesterday, saying that Casey told Weinberger that Nitze had a copy of the proposal. Told him there had been no distribution, and per [word illegible] conversation/PROFS with you Saturday, that you would talk with Cap before normal distribution made. cc: NSRBM --CPUA NSPBT --CPUA NSFEG --CPUA OSDM and DOM highlights MSG FROM: NSWRP --CPUA TO: NSJMP --CPUA 06/30/86 17:57:15 To: NSJMP --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER NOTE FROM: BOB PEARSON Subject: Replenishment of the International Development Association (IDA) Teicher, Stark and Saunders have a paper coming forward to you (Package 90481) on ways to economize on security assistance budget, including compensations for cuts in aid to Israel/Egypt - recommend you discuss with Shultz, Weinberger a nd Baker. Farrar has following paperre meeting of SIG to discuss pros/cons of the various options for possible NSC meeting on 150 account. *** Forwarding note from NSSPF --CPUA 06/30/86 17:11 *** To: NSRBM --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER NSWRP --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER NOTE FROM: Stephen Farrar SUBJECT: Replenishment of the International Development Association (IDA) Treasury is preparing for a July 15 international meeting to discuss a multiyear replenishment of IDA (the soft-loan arm of the World Bank). There will be pressure to commit to a U.S. pledge. While such a pledge could be made within Treasury's out-year budget planning ceilings included in the FY87 Budget, recent congressional cuts make those ceilings unrealistic. State is preparing Shultz to ask Baker--probablt at next Tuesday's economic breakfast--to avoid an IDA pledge until the Administration's budget priorities can be agreed upon based on work of the newly created SIG. I told State staff that I thought you would support that position. cc: NSSID --CPUA NSPWR --CPUA NSLSS --CPUA cc: NSRBM --CPUA NSPBT --CPUA NSFEG --CPUA NSDFP --CPUA Replenishment of the International Development Association (IDA) MSG FROM: NSWRP --CPUA TO: NSPBT --CPUA 07/23/86 12:02:51 To: NSPBT --CPUA NOTE FROM: BOB PEARSON Subject: Meeting With SSCI FYI - relates to question of Nicaragua finding and issue of how SSCI can deal with CIA role in getting the $1000 mil to contras while giving SFRC its proper role. More interesting question concerns VMC insistence that OLN not attend the meeting chaired by RKS this afternoon at 3 p.m. with SSCI staffer. Look for more newspaper articles. *** Forwarding note from NSRKS --CPUA 07/23/86 07:32 *** To: NSWRP --CPUA *** Reply to note of 07/22/86 21:09 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: Ron Sable Subject: Meeting With SSCI Gates recommends no decision on a meeting with Durenberger until we have had our meeting and talked again with McMahon.We agree. cc: NSVMC --CPUA SECRET Meeting With SSCI MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSJMP --CPUA 09/17/86 19:28:55 To NSJMP --CPUA *** Reply to note of 09/17/86 08:15 NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH Subject: President Azcona A Presidential call memo has been prepared, and after much wrangling w/ Ray, I have concurred. [Four lines deleted, (b)(1)(3)(s) exemption] Subsequent to the Alvarez ouster, Bueso was assigned as MilAttache in Chile and at one point last year was invited to meet w/ a group of disgruntled Hondurans who it turns out were plotting the assasination of Pres. Suazo. When the FBI broke the case, Bueso was indicted for conspiracy. His legal advice was apparently to keep his mouth shut and everything wd be worked out. Although subpoenas were prepared for Gorman, Clarridge, Negroponte and North, they were never issued because Bueso pleaded guilty (on advice of counsel). Several months ago Azcona wrote to the President, and was never answered. He now is going to call the President to ask if Bueso can be pardoned. Bueso is due to report to Tallahase [?] to start serving sentence on Sep 25. He apparently still believed up until yesterday that he wd be going to the minimum security facility at Eglin for a short period (days or weeks) and then walk free. Bueso's wife has implored Azcona to do something and he now wants an answer to his letter, but we (USG) should have answered same some time ago. [Three lines deleted, (b)(1)(3)(s) exemption] Gorman, Clarridge, Revell, Trott and Abrams will cabal quietly in the morning to look at options: pardon, clemency, deportation, reduced sentence. Objective is to keep Bueso from feeling like he was lied to in legal process [Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] will advise. d President Azcona FROM: NSAGK --CPUA TO: NSPWR --CPUA 10/15/86 20:35:14 To: NSPWR --CPUA NOTE FROM: Alton G. Keel Subject: Ambassador to Pakistan It would help if he has or does make a strong statement in favor of ADM policy, especially regard Afganistan. Also, he should be "schooled" before he meets with Humphrey and Helms( but he must meet with). *** Forwarding note from NSPWR --CPUA 10/15/86 18:34 *** To: NSAGK --CPUA ALTON G. KEEL NOTE FROM: Peter Rodman SUBJECT: Ambassador to Pakistan Mike Armacost called my attention to today's Washington Times article about right-wing attacks on Arnie Raphel, who is close to being nominated for Ambassador to Pakistan. Apparently, Senators Helms and Humphrey are collecting signatures to block the nomination. The grounds for the opposition to Raphel are that he is allegedly anti-Zia, pro-Soviet, and ready to sell out the Afghan freedom-fighters. This has all the earmarks of a Mike Pillsbury operation. I have known Arnie for a long time and these charges are a gross distortion. I hope you and John will hold the line in support of Arnie's nomination. Those of us here who have worked with him know that NEA, like every bureau, is susceptible to clientitis; NEA has sometimes dragged its feet in helping the Afghans out of excessive deference to the Paks. (Thus it's contradictory to accuse him of being anti-Pak at the same time!) In fact, Arnie is one of the better Foreign Service officers. He is smart and shrewd, with good political instincts; he is also politically savvy enough to be responsive to White House direction. [One line deleted, (b)(6) exemption] cc: NSSRS --CPUA NSSRT --CPUA MSG FROM: NSLSS --CPUA TO: NS[?] --CPUA 11/19/86 19:39:46 To: NS[?] --CPUA MSG FROM: Lynn S. Sachs SUBJECT: UPDATE--READ BEFORE 7:30 MEETING Meeting with Lott, Kemp, Michel lasted for one hour. JMP gave a lengthy description on the rationale/events etc. There was not enough in the way of Q and A's -- but that in large part was due to Kemp being there -- and trying to monopolize the questioning. It was unfortunate because Lott and Michel lost the opportunity to ask their questions and JMP lost the opportunity to hear what they had to say. But both Trent and Bob realize that it was their doing that they invited Kemp. So no hard feelings, they were thankful that we so quickly pulled a meeting together. One thing that must be clarified with JMP though. He expressed in the meeting that both Shultz and he had agreed to breakfast meetings with the HFAC and then proceeded to say that he hoped these breakfasts would make it clear to the committee that a open hearing was not necessary. I tried to correct him but it passed too quickly. I followed up with Paul afterwards who said that he thinks JMP is clear on the hearing for the 10th. I suggest you raise it though--because we have certainly committed ourselves to this hearing. I'm not as convinced as Paul is that JMP understands the nature of our "deal". Also, State (Louise signature) sent a response to Hamilton/Fascell letter today. Boyer/Berry hoped that the response would definitely put to bed any further discussions on the Hamilton hearing on Monday. But Hamilton's staffer--VanDusen--returned to town today and is pissed that the full committee is trying to pull the hearing away from them. Hamilton did return to town tonight and VanDusen is scheduled to meet with him early tomorrow morning -- and will make a strong pitch to proceed with the hearing. After discussion with Berry (who says Boyer off the record agrees), Puck[?], Thompson -- all think that it would be a good idea for JMP to call Hamilton FIRST THING Thursday morning--welcome him back, give him a little info, ask him to give JMP and administration opportunity to present info to Intell Committee, and at a minimum delay his decision on the subcommittee hearing til after the Friday sessions. Hopefully JMP would be able to convince him to not hold the subcommittee hearing at all -- and let it be handled by the fullcommittee, with appropriate principles, on Dec 10. I did not raise it with JMP this evening because of the press conference but am leaving it to you to raise at the 7:30. SO--ASK JMP TO CALL HAMILTON FIRST THING AFTER THE 7:30. Also, Michel raised the issue of Central America as he was walking out of the room. Said to JMP that we may have problems as soon as congress returns. JMP didn't know what he was talking about and asked Paul to check with us. Again, due to the press of events tonight, Paul asked that we clarify with JMP at the 7:30. Michel was referring to the possibility that the House will move a resoltuion as soon as they return calling for a separate affirmative vote before the next tranch of funds is released. (Again, the importance of making sure that our coalition is happy with our plans for regional democracies assistance with effect how this goes.) The Casey meeting has bee set up for 1:30. Apparently Meese's #2 will also be attendence but I do not know who else will be included. Also, FYI the Aspin hearing schedule for his panel is as follows: 11/21 Friday--Perle, 11/24 Monday--Adelman--tentatively scheduled. Apparently Adelman offered to appear in a conversation he had with Aspin. Aspin (Finch) called Eileen to see about the scheduling. Eileen came to us. So Adelman does not know that Monday is the potential date. Raised it at staff meeting -- but JMP was not there -- Lint, Sven seem to think that it is probably to our advantage to have Adelman go--he can answer questions raised on Friday in Perle hearing (if the answers need readdressing) and may buffer the next day's hearing -- which is 11/25 Tuesday--Crowe 12/1 Monday--Nitze scheduled JMP is NOT aware of this hearing schedule. You may want to raise it with him. Lint and Sven are arranging for Perle and Adelman to meet with Linhard when he returns -- and before they testify. We need to close the loop with Eileen. I can do that when I come in. But felt that JMP should be apprised before we move any further. these are the highlights. See you in a while UPDATE--READ BEFORE 7:30 MEETING MSG FROM: NSLSS --CPUA TO: NSBLP --CPUA 11/21/86 10:02:30 To: NSPBT --CPUA *** Resending note of 11/13/86 10:27 To: NSPWS --CPUA NSPKS --CPUA please print NOTE FROM: LINTON BROOKS SUBJECT: Possible JMP Speech on Not Anticipating Arms Control In the pre brief for last week's MX session with the President, JMP asked if we should give a speech on the importance of not anticipating arms control progress. Idea would be to defuse any suggestion that we can stop funding new ballistic missiles because they are going to be banned. Most present thought the idea was good. I told Bob Linhard I'd take this one for action. My view is that we should aim at shortly after the Congress reconvenes; that's our real audience. I would assume we'd want something within a week or two after the initial round of testimony by SecDef. waiting until then also lets the current Iran flap subside a bit. For Paul: Are there any high vis opportunities in that time frame that you would especially want to grab? JMP doesn't speak that often so we may as wellaim at getting max impact. For Ron: Am I right on the timing from your viewpoint? If we are in agreement, I'll put something together over the next few weeks for JMP to consider. cc: NSREL --CPUA BOB LINHARD NSJD --CPUA JOHN DOUGLASS NSDAM --CPUA DON MAHLEY NSLSS --CPUA NSWAC --CPUA NSPBT --CPUA NSSES --CPUA STEVE STEINER FROM: NSPWR --CPUA TO: NSDBR --CPUA 02/05/87 08:37:24 To: NSGSG --CPUA Frank C. Carlucci NSWRP --CPUA Frank C. Carlucci NOTE FROM: Peter Rodman SUBJECT: Biden-Levine We should start referring to this as the Biden-Levine-Khomeini "Help Iran Win the War" bill. cc: NSABF --CPUA NSJRS --CPUA NSRBO --CPUA NSDBR --CPUA NSWJB --CPUA NSWAC --CPUA NSJHO --CPUA NSRMS --CPUA NSGSG --CPUA Colin L. Powell NSWRP --CPUA Colin L. Powell FROM: NSABF --CPUA TO: NSJRS --CPUA 02/06/87 17:32:45 To: NSJRS --CPUA *** Reply to note of 02/05/87 15:35 NOTE FROM: Alison B. Fortier Subject: Arms sales One outcome of Schultz meeting with SEnators: most unaware of Javits report. State-H believes Javits report will help buttress our case that we're not going to go hog wild on arms sales. Therefore, Schultz will reconvene with the "Dole Group" after the recess to go over the Javits report; State will thus wait to send it to Hill until end of recess/Feb. 17. Also, no prenotifications will go up until after recess. Blackhawks may be less of a problem than Bell helicopters. cc: NSRBO NSRMS FROM: NSCLP --CPUA TO: NSWAC --CPUA 02/11/87 12:52:10 To: NSWAC --CPUA NOTE FROM: Colin L. Powell SUBJECT: PACKARD MEETING I talked to Will Taft and he is receptive to Godwin attending. He want ed to think about it overnight. I think he'll go for it. One of the perceptions in DOD is that as Dave goes around on the Hill and talks to Godwin, he is selling not the Packard Commission report but the Dave Packard view of what should have been in the Packard Commission report. FROM: NSABF --CPUA TO: NSDBR --CPUA 02/13/87 10:15:04 To: NSDBR --CPUA NOTE FROM: Alison B. Fortier SUBJECT: JAVITS REPORT #2 Dennis, please look at my note to Bob Dean. Do you agree? I guess I thought that we had agreed to brief at least somewhat as the report went to the Hill. You can at least offer to brief sympathetic (to the Admin) staff today. We run into the same problems with briefings as we do with the report itself related to the Shamir visit. You don't want to brief some Members on upcoming arms sales and then see them stand up at a HFAC coffee and ask PM Shamir what he thinks about Blackhawks for Saudi Arabia. It's my assumption that unless we alert Hill and brief on contents of Javits report, it will take a while for Hill to realize it's up there. FROM: NSDBR --CPUA TO: NSABF --CPUA 02/13/87 11:24:48 To: NSABF --CPUA *** Reply to note of 02/13/87 10:15 FROM: Dennis Ross Subject: JAVITS REPORT #2 You are right on--as they say in Berkeley. MEMORANDUM FOR ALISON FORTIER 3/16/87 18:10:32 SECRET ------ FROM: STEPHEN I. DANZANSKY SUBJECT: Readout from Shultz-Baker-Carlucci International Economlc Policy Breakfast, March 16 (This inforamtion may not be shared outside the NSC.) Trade Legislation ----------------- There were expressions of concern about the direction and management of trade legislative package. Subcommmittee bill is likely to be the most favorable version, Committee bill and final House bill likely to be worse due to Rostenkowski/Wright power struggle. Whitehead expressed particular concern about elements of bill removing Presidential discretion in trade decisions and suggested Administration make known its displeasure and its intent to veto same. Baker mentioned EPC meeting today to shape strategy; asked whether White House was managing the LSG process (which it is not due to transition). Suggested Secretary of State and FCC become involved in process and attend EPC meeting today to make views known about direction of bill and particularly of transfer of Presidentlal discretion. It was mentioned that having USTR solo-manage that portion of bill was like fox in chicken coop since USTR was chief beneflciary. Darman called for strong Senate strategy lining up coalitions and votes. FCC offered to have the President mention the transfer question at this week's leadership meeting but there was some feeling that the time was not yet ripe for that level of activity. FCC did ask that SID prepare talking points so that the President would be prepared to respond to questions at this week's proposed press conference. MEMORANDUM FOR TY COBB March 31, 1987 FROM: STEPHEN I. DANZANSKY SUBJECT: Readout from Shultz-Baker-Carlucci International Economlc Policy Breakfast, March 30 Bermuda Tax Treaty Question raised as to results of last Friday's PRG on Bermuda. We reported on some progress and a commitment to move forward on both the tax treaty and on the technical amendments. Darman reported that Mentz' instructions were to move very cautiously; that it would be most difficult to alter the excise tax provision because of its effect upon Barbados. Giving Bermuda parity with Barbados means adding tax relief for Bermuda or taking away from Barbados. Rostenkowski fancies that the House of Representatives should have a say in the Constitutional process of advising and consenting on treaties. Darman felt that anything that helped Bermuda would hurt Barbados. Italians (G-5/G-7) Italy will appear at the G-7 meeting In Washington during the IMF/IBRD Interim session in April. Problem is still sticky with Italians now asking that G-5 and G-7 always meet at separate times. FROM: NSDBR --CPUA TO: NSABF --CPUA 10/28/87 14:20:49 To: NSABF --CPUA *** Reply to note of 10/28/87 14:09 FROM: Dennis Ross Subject: Saudi arms sales The language probably is cleared--before I left Doug Blumenthal of AIPAC said Metzenbaum had asked him to get together with me on language on the F-15; I made some changes on it, showed it to Colinand he approved it. I haven't seen what they are using, but presume it is what Doug and I had talked about. Also, we got these silly and simple-minded letters from State to send to Cranston et al on the Saudi arms package; I see no reason to send them at least in their present form. Have you seen them and do you think that such letters are needed at this point? PS I didn't give away the store in Moscow, although I think Karen bought it.

AREADME CHAP01 CHAP02 CHAP03 CHAP04 CHAP05 CHAP06 CHAP07 CHAP08 CHAP09 CHAP10 CHAP11 CHRON { November 22 1986 } WHOSWHO Files Listed: 14

Correction/submissions

CIA FOIA Archive

National Security Archives

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purpose of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.