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

CHAP09 6/27/83 14:47:01 Bud______ Judge____ Subj: [Deleted, (b)(1)(3)(s) exemption] Military Assistance -- SECRET -- Fred Wettering reports that on Saturday Larry Eagleburger and John McMahon agreed we would tell [Deleted, (b)(1)(3)(s) exemption] that we would match their funds [Three lines Deleted, (b)(1)(3)(s) exemption] I hope they checked with one of you They didn't check with Fred. John FROM: NSRCM --CPUA TO: NSPBT --CPUA 07/22/85 19:11:40 To: NSPBT --CPUA *** Reply to note of 07/22/85 19:05 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: ROBERT MCFARLANE Subject: Rhett Dawson This is a pretty sorry way to do business. We started wringing this question out a month ago. They could hav;e borught Rhett on the staff at that time and avoided this problem. Now they are passing the buck to defense who surely will object to the ses level 6 slot and promptly leak it to the Hill that the WH is trying to circumvent the intent of the law. And at the end of the day we will probably lose Rhett's services. Please advise Hauser that I intend to recommend to Rhett that he withdraw. cc: NSJMP --CPUA FROM: NSPBT --CPUA TO: NSJMP --CPUA 07/22/85 19:18:12 To: NSJMP --CPUA NOTE FROM: PAUL THOMPSON Subject: Rhett Dawson Even though Mike Donley kept advocating the grandfather clause, I warned RCM that there would be opposition to this nove. Even now, it could be done but though Houser is at least hiding a semblance of legal validity, the rest of the senior staff are greatly opposed and would try to defeat RCM on this one even if he didn't buy the legal argument and tried to proceed. *** Forwarding note from NSPBT --CPUA 07/22/85 19:05 *** To: NSRCM --CPUA NOTE FROM: PAUL THOMPSON SUBJECT: Rhett Dawson Dick Houser has recommended against Rhett's being hired at the EL II pay level(or any white house billet)in accordance with your request. He is of the opinion that such an arrangement would circumvent the statutory intent of the Federal Advisory Commission Act. (which limits compensation for commission-related staff to the GS 18 level. (68,700) For the President to designate one of the slots available to him for his own staff, and then to immediately use that individual for a position on the Commission is too closely related to the rules and conditions which govern a Presidential commission.The only way in which there would be sufficient distance would be if the person had been on the staff for some time in a legitimate, existing slot and then would have been detailed to the commission. Dick did not rule out the potential of a DOD SES VI position as being in the same category of conflicting with the Act, so that appears to be feasible. (72,300) Dick's recommendation is based in part on his concern that the GAO might scrutinize the Commission(as they apparently did in the Grace Commission)and find it highly inadvisable if not improper for the President to have hired Rhett with the express intent of putting him on the Commission. This is magnified when the sole purpose for doing so is to get the additional money. FROM: NSPBT --CPUA TO: NSRCM --CPUA 07/23/85 09:03:56 To: NSRCM --CPUA *** Reply to note of 07/22/85 19:11 NOTE FROM: PAUL THOMPSON Subject: Rhett Dawson Hauser and I talked again last night. He is of the opinion that even if Rhett had been brought on the books a month ago or longer that it would not have made a difference since the primary purpose still would have been to hire him for service on the Commission. FROM: NSRCM --CPUA TO: NSPBT --CPUA 07/23/85 09:15:37 To: NSPBT --CPUA *** Reply to note of 07/23/85 09:03 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: ROBERT MCFARLANE Subject: Rhett Dawson That's legalistic balderdash. Where does it stand now? Are they pushing to get the SES Level 6 at DOD? Have they called Dawson? If not why not? They ought to do so right away and go over the problem. cc: NSJMP --CPUA FROM: NSPBT --CPUA TO: NSWRP --CPUA 07/30/85 19:42:38 To: NSWRP --CPUA NOTE FROM: PAUL THOMPSON SUBJECT: legal i would like to sit down with you in an isolated setting sometime soon and discuss our legal directorate. I am each day unimpressed with how inefficient and ineffective our legal shop is. I would like to set up certain procedures and uniform ways of dealing with the national security system. we need to gather our files and capability under one roofalso so that we can cover for each other. FROM: NSWRP --CPUA TO: NSPBT --CPUA 07/31/85 09:24:12 To: NSPBT --CPUA *** Reply to note of 07/30/85 19:42 NOTE FROM: BOB PEARSON Subject: legal To the extent that I have been able to contribute to the inefficiency of the legal shop, I am equally unimpressed, and believe that lunch in an approprite setting any time this week (go on leave COB Friday) would be helpful. Thanks. cc: NSWRP --CPUA MSG FROM: NSVMC --CPUA TO: NSWRP --CPUA 09/10/85 10:37:10 To: NSWFM --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER NSWRP --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER NOTE FROM: Vincent Cannistraro SUBJECT: Tech Theft White Paper Casey says he has got Bud's approval for Weinberger to present the White Paper on Tech Theft next Tuesday, the 17th. Fred Ikle is going to have a meeting in his office on the mechanics. Bob Gates apparently will be calling you directly on the subject. Schneider is unhappy he has been cut out of it and intends to go on his scheduled trip rather than heed Ikle's request he be on hand with Richard Perle to answer questions when Weinberger presents. Do you want me involved with the coordination or would you prefer the public diplomacy people, i.e. Judyt Mandel. Tech Theft White Paper FROM: NSDGM --CPUA TO: NSJL --CPUA 11/21/85 18:34:06 To: NSJL --CPUA NOTE FROM: David Major Subject: Leahy-Huddleston amendment Presidential Report on CI Thought you would like to know the status! *** Forwarding note from NSWRP --CPUA 11/21/85 14:43 *** To: NSDGM --CPUA NOTE FROM: BOB PEARSON Subject: Leahy-Huddleston amendment Presidential Report on CI Dave, Bud is off PROFS. Would you please check with Ron Sable and provide recommendation on how to handle, especially being in touch with Leahy directly or by letter to advise of timing of submission of report. Thanks very much. *** Forwarding note from NSDGM --CPUA 11/21/85 14:17 *** To: NSWFM --CPUA ROBERT MCFARLANE NSWRP --CPUA ROBERT MCFARLANE NOTE FROM: David Major SUBJECT: Leahy-Huddleston amendment Presidential Report on CI According to the captioned amendment an annual Presidential report on equivalence and reciprocity in the treatment of Hostile Intellignece governments was due to be submitted to Congress by 11/8/85. This report first draft was submitted to the NSC on ll/19/85 and is absolutely unacceptable. It completly ignores the PRC, Korean, Vietnam Intellignece Services and inaddition in my opinion distorts the facts on presence and the way we are dealing with the problem. In addition it also ignores NSDD 196 signed 11/1/85. This paper would be dynimite in the hands of the congress now and would illustrate a lack of executive coordination. In fact there was no coordination outside of State in preparing this report. The numbers are wrong and the policy statements do not track. Accordingly instead of preparing paper that could embarress the White House and the Administration in my conversations with SSCI staff they suggested I speak directly with Leahy and advise him that a coordinated report will be prepared but will need an extention in time. UAC I will a meeting with Leahy.Note the paper was not signed out by Shultz but by Platt.DAVID cc: NSKED --CPUA cc: NSRKS --CPUA NSKED --CPUA NSJMP --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSJMP --CPUA 12/20/85 21:30:51 To: NSJMP --CPUA *** Reply to note of 08/31/85 13:26 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH Subject: PRIVATE BLANK CHECK Two points for your breakfast meeting with Secretary Shultz re Terrorism: The VP task force report calls for enhanced management at both NSC and in the office of the Ambassador at Large for C/T. We intend to take advantage of the expertise in the VP task force by detailing two of the officers from the Task Force to the NSC as a means of meeting the management objectives established in the report which was submitted on December 20. There are several other military officers and one CIA officer who have served on the VP's Task Force, several of which could be of considerable assistance to the Ambassador at Large. One, Navy Capt, Dave McMunn is particularly talented and has considerable experience in programming. It wd seem to be a good idea if we could keep some of this talent at work at State, NSC and CIA as we proceed to implement the recommendations of the VP's Report. PRIVATE BLANK CHECK MSG FROM: NSJMP --CPUA TO: NSOLN --CPUA 12/21/85 15:59:31 To: NSOLN --CPUA *** Reply to note of 12/20/85 21:30 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: JOHN POINDEXTER Subject: PRIVATE BLANK CHECK I COVERED THIS WITH SHULTZ AT BREAKFAST. WHITEHEAD, ARMACOST AND FORTIER WERE THERE. SHULTZ SEEMED INTERESTED AND SAID HE WOULD FOLLOW UP. PRIVATE BLANK CHECK FROM: NSJMP --CPUA TO: NSPBT --CPUA 02/18/86 20:33:07 To: NSWRP --CPUA *** Reply to note of 02/18/86 19:13 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: JOHN POINDEXTER Subject: SACG AGENDA AND RICHARD PERLE YOUR PLAN IF FINE. I WILL MENTION INF AT END OF MEETING TOMORROW. HAVE THE DECISION PAPER READY FOR MY DEPARTURE ON THURSDAY MORNING. I WILL ARRANGE TO DISCUSS WITH PREISDENT, SHULTZ AND WEINBERGER ON THE WAY BACK FROM GRENADA. AS THIS POINT RICHARD PERLE IS TREADING ON VERY THIN ICE WITH ME. I AM ABOUT TO EXCLUDE HIM FROM ALL SACG MEETINGS. cc: NSREL --CPUA BOB LINHARD NSRFL --CPUA RON LEHMAN NSDRF --CPUA DON FORTIER NSRBM --CPUA ROD MCDANIEL NSPBT --CPUA PAUL THOMPSON MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSCMB --CPUA 02/24/86 11:21:34 To: NSCMB --CPUA *** Reply to note of 02/24/86 10:51 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH Subject: crosshatch # 5176 I personally called my concurrence on this crosshatch to a female voice on extension 2224 on Friday evening Feb 21. o crosshatch # 5176 MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSWR --CPUA 02/24/86 19:47:52 To: NSWR --CPUA *** Reply to note of 02/22/86 16:42 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH Subject: Central America many thanks. ] Central America MSG FROM: NSRCM --CPUA TO: NSOLN --CPUA 02/27/86 16:02:23 To: NSOLN --CPUA *** Reply to note of 02/27/86 08:54 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: ROBERT MCFARLANE Subject: How are things? Roger Ollie. Well done--if the world only knew how many times you have kept a semblance of integrity and gumption to US policy, they would make you Secretary of State. But they can't know and would complain if they did--such is the state of democracy in the late 20th century. But the mission was terribly promising. As you know I do not hold Gorbanifar in high regard and so am particularly glad to here of Kangarlu's apparent authority. I have just gotten a note from John asking whether or not I could go some time next week and that the President is on board. I agreed. So hunker down and get some rest; let this word come to you in channels, but pack your bags to be ready to go in the next week or so. Incidentally, I have had periodic requests from Mike to assist in getting visasfor Gorbanifar to come to Switzerland [Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] I have refused. Surely if they have any real bona fides they can get a visa in Tehran from the Swiss embassy or somewhere else. I do not intend to tell Mike any of this new info. Recommend against your doing so. Bravo Zulu. How are things? MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSRCM --CPUA 02/27/86 20:22:22 To: NSRCM --CPUA *** Reply to note of 02/27/86 16:02 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH Subject: How are things? Am reading things out of sequence due to fatigue. Many thanks for yr note. Have responded to most of this in my reply re exchanges - before I read this one. It concerns re Mike are shared here. WILCO re the passing of info. He means well but poses a significant problem. Nir says he has info that Mike has a financial relationship w/ Gorba, Nimrodi and perhaps Schwimmer. If true, this is not good. We also know [Deleted, (b)(1)(3)(S/C) exemption] that Gorba tells Mike everything and that is an addditional reason to get Gorba out of the long range picture ASAP. We will still need to have him involved in the TOWs transactions since he manages the financial end for the Iraniansin Europe. We ought to sit quietly and think about how we handle Mike so that he does not start talking out of digruntlement (if that's a word). Have asked JMP for a session w/ you and Dick Secord as soon as possible after Dick returns tomorrow night fm Eur where he is setting up an arms delivery for the Nic resistance. A man of many talents ol' Secord is. Must be off. Am supposed to make a speech on aiding the Nic resistance to a group of supporters. Best regards. North How are things? FROM: NSELM --CPUA TO: NSRBH --CPUA 03/04/86 15:23:50 To: NSRBM --CPUA NOTE FROM: ELAINE MORTON SUBJECT: IRAN-IRAQ LAST WEEK, IN PREPARATION FOR A VERY CLOSELY HELD MEETING WITH DON FORTIER, HOWIE TEICHER ASKED CMC FOR SOME RAW INTELLIGENCE DATA. OTHER THAN THAT, AND A MEETING TO WHICH I WAS INVITED AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT, I DO NOT HAVE ANY IDEA OF WHAT WE (THE NSC) ARE DOING ON THE ISSUE. SUBJECT ARISES BECAUSE RON ST MARTIN WANTS ME BRIEFED IN SO THAT I CAN WORK ON ISSUE IF NEED BE WHEN HOWIED GOES ON HIS UPCOMING TRIP. TRIED TO GET IN TOUCH WITH HOWIE YESTERDAY BUT FAILED. NOW HE IS OUT SICK. CAN YOU BRIEF ME ON THE BASICS OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT CAN WAIT? FROM: NSELM --CPUA TO: NSHRT --CPUA 03/07/86 12:25:22 To: NSRBM --CPUA NSWRP --CPUA NSHRT --CPUA NSJC --CPUA NSRBM --CPUA DONALD FORTIER NSWRP --CPUA DONALD FORTIER NOTE FROM: ELAINE MORTON SUBJECT: Meetings on Libyan Oil Sanctions Have accompanied Andrew Ensor to meetings at State (Creekmore, Ussery, Knickmeyer, Teicher) and Treasury (Kimmitt, Schotta, Monk, Muench). They went well but-- in addition to introducing Ensor -- gave quite an airing to State-Treasury differences about the appropriate ways to proceed from here. Basically, Treasury wants to proceed with the E.O. ban on U.S. imports of oil processed by refineries using a significant amounts of Libyan crude. State argues that this could start a trade war with our European allies, provide means for them to take the issue to the GATT, and besides, the same refineries that process Libyan crude are not also heavily represented in the U.S. market. State charges that Treasury is giving much too favorable licenses to the oil companies (which Treasury strongly denies). State also charges that not a single oil service company has even filed for a license to withdraw and thus they are still doing "business as usual" (also denied by Treasury). Treasury charges that State should tend to its own knitting: that not a single demarche has been sent by State protesting European instances of backfill that are readily apparent from intelligence data. We still do not have State's paper on the residual supplier initiative. Howie is leaning on State on all of the above (getting the paper over, making the demarches). Ultimately, we will need a single paper that not only does pros and cons of each approach but also shows ways in which they can be made complementary or, because regulatory hardball would interfere with diplomatic requests for cooperation, are (as State argues) essentially mutually exclusive. MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSJMP --CPUA 03/07/86 15:32:43 To: NSJMP --CPUA *** Reply to note of 08/31/85 13:26 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH Subject: PRIVATE BLANK CHECK We have a very urgent action coming to you re the Kilburn rescue operation. Two days ago the CSG/TIWG plan for an at-sea exchange was put to the Canadian contact and he accepted. He departs for Lebanon on Sunday. As soon as he indicated a willingness to advance this idea w/ the captors, [Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] System to conduct joint planning in the event that DoD was willing/prepared to assist/participate. As of this morning CIA had rec'd no response - except a call back fm the [Deleted, (b)(1)(6)(s) exemption] that there were War Powers implications to the request. Under questioning fm Tom Twetten, [Deleted, (b)(6)(s) exemption] admitted that he had not yet taken the request to JSOA.At Tom's request nothing wd be done until the SecDef received a peice of paper fm you tasking the CIA/DoD planning. This is wrong. Not only does it indicate that the [Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] does not work (something that Dick Secord has bitched about in the TOW arrangement) but that the rigid rqmts fm Moellering for paper to cover even planning destroys the very purpose for which the OSG was established. The paper has been done and yr urgent signature is requested - but at some point in the not too distant future it wd be good if you, Casey, W'bgr and Crowe cd sit down and review both [Deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] and the OSG. Once you have signed, I will hand carry to yr memo to DoD on my way to Dulles. Many thanks, V/R North. BT PRIVATE BLANK CHECK FROM: NSWRP --CPUA TO: NSPBT --CPUA 03/10/86 08:00:12 To: NSJMP --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: BOB PEARSON Subject: Afghan Humanitarian Assistance From Raymond.Florence, FYI, request for phone call. *** Forwarding note from NSWR --CPUA 03/08/86 16:45 *** To: NSRBM --CPUA DONALD FORTIER NSWRP --CPUA DONALD FORTIER NOTE FROM: Walter Raymond SUBJECT: Afghan Humanitarian Assistance I expressed concern at the ODSM on Thursdayregarding a sentence in a restricted handling STATIS cable which said: "Apart from AID, most people within the administration dealing with Afghanistan are prepared to consider a Pakistani role which would include a large measure of control by ISI if that is necessary." This is in reference to cross border humanitarian operations (CBA).Such a statement simply is not true. Such a policy does not reflect USG policy. As you are well aware there are several reasons why we should extend humanitarian assistance openly: (1)No gain in using covert means if not needed; (2) the Hill and the body politic want to do something to help the Afghans and channeling their efforts toward humanitarian assistance is consistent with the popular mood and is certainly better than getting the body politic involved in clamoringfor expanded lethal; (3) expanded humanitarian assistance also permits us to work with European PVOs and to expand the overall Western interest. This in turn translates out as greater pressure, higher cost, to the Soviets There is a deep suspicion of VOLAGS within AID and a ritualistic desire to have a formal organization to work with in Pakistan. Typical AID mind gridlock. Hinton has not helped because he to wants a more structured relationship. The Paks from their side do not want a structured relationship, although they do want to maintain control. And, as you know, are pretty disinterested in our direct dealings with the Afghan Resistance Coalition. At any rate, whether unilaterally from the Paks, or through maladroitism from the US side in Pakistan or whether through Jujego asserting his perks and muscles it appears that the Paks may also have second thoughts about humanitarian aid and may prefer an ISI channel. I think it is essential that we resist this and that we seek to find a way to do the job consistent with Pak sensitivities. [One line deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] Zal believes we should continue to provide support to the Volags on a business as usual basis until the Paks create some sort of a "front" which they will probably do in the near term. Recommendation: Call Armacost and have him resist the idea of funneling humanitarian assistance thru ISI. We need to think imaginatively and act flexibly tomake operational arrangements which will permit this program to go forward. Avoid over- bureaucratizing a situation and forcing the Paks to say yes or no when they would just as soon look the other way.(FPO: Pls print) cc: NSWR --CPUA NSSRS --CPUA NSFPO --CPUA cc: NSPBT --CPUA NSWR --CPUA NSFEG --CPUA NSDRF --CPUA DONALD FORTIER FROM: NSWRP --CPUA TO: NSJMP --CPUA 03/20/86 18:10:09 To: NSJMP --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER NSDRF --CPUA DONALD FORTIER NOTE FROM: BOB PEARSON Subject: Mtg w/Don Gregg re NSDD From Donley. *** Forwarding note from NSMBD --CPUA 03/20/86 17:29 *** To: NSRBM --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER NSWRP --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER NOTE FROM: Michael B. Donley SUBJECT: Mtg w/Don Gregg re NSDD John D. and I met with Don Gregg and staff this afternoon to brief them on the contents of the NSDD implementing Packard. We started by giving them the background to formation of the Commission, what's happended during the past year, and where we are headed in the immediate future. It was immediatedly apparent that Don was more interested in the political dynamics than the detailed issues of substance. (For example, he wanted to know how John Lehman fit in.) In response, we tried to put the Commission's activities in an historical context: these are the right issues for the President's second term; not intended as criticism of SECDEF, but rather presents unique opportunity; need to regain high ground from Congress, etc. Don is interested in carving out a special role for the VP, and settled on the idea that the VP should go talk to the President and offer to help the President work through these tough issues with SECDEF. He is apparently convinced (and rightly so) that if the Packard implementation is not successful the VP will certainly inherit the public's negative image of defense management in 1988. We urged Don to talk this through with you prior to having the VP raise these issues with the President, and he indicated that he would do so. cc: NSJD --CPUA NSPBT --CPUA NSRFL --CPUA NSREL --CPUA cc: NSMBD --CPUA FROM: NSRBM --CPUA TO: NSJMP --CPUA 03/21/86 11:46:35 To: NSJMP --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER NSDRF --CPUA DONALD FORTIER NOTE FROM: ROD B. MCDANIEL Subject: state screw-up on FON Jim says Raphel is cancelling the message he discusses below. *** Forwarding note from NSJRS --CPUA 03/21/86 11:21 *** 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: State screw-up on FON Early this morning, State sent out a Secret Libyan threat alert to all posts on heightened threat of Libyan terrorist attack based on possible reaction to US ops in Gulf of Sidra. It contained the additional unclass version: "The US has initiated new freedom of navigation operations in the Gulf of Sidra. Libyan leader Qadhafi has previously threatened to attack US targets if US ships crossed the 32-30 line. The US is concerned that Libya may undertake terrorist action against US personnel or facilities as a form of reprisal." THIS IS EXACTLY OPPOSITE OF GUIDANCE FROM YESTERDAY'S ARMACOST MEETING. Raphel reports message was not cleared by either Oakley or S/S, and was sent out by INR without checking. State is changing procedures, but damage is done. I recommend strong phone call to Armacost asking who's in charge at State. I'm calllng Armitage now. Weinberger will hit the roof. MSG: FROM NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSKWZ --CPUA 04/16/86 16:42:10 To: NSKWZ --CPUA *** Reply to note of 04/16/86 16:29 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH Subject: mess bill On the way - but only if you have he or Don call me back! 1 mess bill MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSKWZ --CPUA 04/16/86 17:31:02 To: NSKWZ --CPUA *** Reply to note of 04/16/86 16:46 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH Subject: mess bill No call = no money, honey mess bill MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSRKS --CPUA 04/18/86 10:15:07 To: NSRKS --CPUA *** Reply to note of 04/17/86 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH Subject: Habib mission Yes. Habib mission MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSRCM --CPUA 04/18/86 10:22:32 To: NSRCM --CPUA *** Reply to note of 04/17/86 09:45 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH Subject: Scott I just got to this note after having my system down for over a day and am really happy to see it. The Brigade Commander slot is something that only a very few of a very few good men ever can aspire to. The honor is only his -- but sure is something to make a Dad feel justifiably proud. Scott MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSKWZ --CPUA 04/18/86 10:23:48 To: NSKWZ --CPUA *** Reply to note of 04/17/86 09:37 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH Subject: mess bill No, don't! I'll pay, I'll pay! . mess bill MSG FROM: NSRCM --CPUA TO: NSOLN --CPUA 04/19/86 01:40:54 To: NSOLN --CPUA *** Reply to note of 04/18/86 10:22 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: ROBERT MCFARLANE Subject: Scott Thanks Ollie; the Lord is still with us. r Scott MSG FROM: NSRCM --CPUA TO: NSOLN --CPUA 04/20/86 15:47:03 To: NSOLN --CPUA -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: ROBERT MCFARLANE SUBJECT: Any guesses? I talked to John Saturday and he intends to send me a note on Monday or so about the prognosis for the dialogue with the Iranians. I would also appreciate your sense of things. I have the impression that they have recurrent (and understandable) disagreements over this channel and also are no doubt arguing over the signifigance of our raid. But if expect to get a "go" this week I will need to cancel some things and get replacements so do give me a heads up when you can see with any confidence that things are picking up. Many thanks. ? Any guesses? MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSRBM --CPUA 04/21/86 11:51:09 To: NSRBM --CPUA *** Reply to note of 04/21/86 09:59 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH Subject: Feints Moellering now saying that EUCOM was tasked on Friday iaw discussion at Fortier Gp mtg on Friday. He also says that they have "not yet heard" fm EUCOM on status of action. This ought to be put before JMP in the UNACCEPTABLE category. We are fast becoming a joke in the interagency arena and what we say or do is simply ignored. With Sate making a bid to sieze control of the process it wd seem that we need to take some steps lest we become completely irrelevant to both the process and the policy. * Feints MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSKED --CPUA 04/22/86 08:54:29 To: NSKED --CPUA -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH SUBJECT: Follow-up Came by at 1800 last night. No answer at door. Came by at 0825 this morning. No answer at door. Your move. G Follow-up MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: [name illegible] -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH Subject: Good Results on Proposed Teicher/Shirin move *** Forwarding note from NSMAD --CPUA 04/22/86 12:29 *** To: NSHRT --CPUA NSSRT --CPUA NSSRS --CPUA NSOLN --CPUA NSJRS --CPUA NSRTC --CPUA NSGVM --CPUA NOTE FROM: Mary Dix Subject: Good Results on Proposed Teicher/Shirin move *** Forwarding note from NSMAD --CPUA 04/22/86 11:22 *** To: NSRBM --CPUA NOTE FROM: Mary Dix SUBJECT: Good Results on Proposed Teicher/Shirin move I spoke to Howard Teicher and he was in favor of the move and asked that it occur immediately. Howard was very pleased about the positive effect that moving Shirin into the suite would have: - Coordination of the workload would be improved - Howard could brief Sairin on different areas/actions in the Directorate, thus making the transition a smooth one when he leaves upon Dennis Ross' arrival in May Also, a discussion followed in which all present agreed with the decision to move Shirin into the suite: - Shirin's placement in the suite is wise because she has institutional knowledge of the NSC; it would prove beneficial to the directorate to have Shirin close by to assist in the transition of both Dennis Ross and the third staff member who will both be new to the NSC staff - Also, the old NSC motto of "He who suffers the longest should get the best location" was totally supported Shirin has agreed to the move taking place this week. She has pointed out that she will assume the telephone lines already in suite 348 to assure continuity of the directorate. I will coordinate the movement of Shirin's furniture/safes into Howard's present office. Howard will use most of Covey's present furniture, so I will move Howard's furniture (with his permission) into Suite 392 into Shirin's present room. Therefore, Ollie North's team, Mr. Earl and Coy, will be able to have a place to work right next to Ollie until they move to their new location in Room 302 in May. (Same timeframe as the Teicher move into Suite 392 when Ross comes on board.) Reference secretarial support: There are presently two secretaries in room 348 They will stay right where they are and support Teicher and Shirin. Shirin's secretary BJ should be back to work full time when Teicher and his secretary move down to room 392. Joan Vail will continue to support Steve Sestanovich at her own request. She enjoys working with him and has requested that when she moves into the Secretariat to work for Van that she keep Steve's telephone line with her and continue to provide secretarial support for Steve. Thus, Steve as a senior director, will have one person designated to take care of his phone, scheduling, mail pickup, and the limited typing support that he requires. (This has been coordinated with Steve Sestanovich and he is in total agreement. Steve pointed out that he really does not require typing support and that Joan would perfectly fit his support needs) I do not expect BJ to return to work for another week or so. When she does come back, it will be on a part time basis and we will arrange for a temporary work space in room 348 for BJ until Teicher and his secretary, J. Murphy, move to Suite 392 when Ross comes on board. By that time, BJ should be back to a full time work schedule. If all of this sounds ok to you, I will forward this note to the people involved with the move. Mary cc: NSPDW --CPUA NSJAM --CPUA NSJMJ --CPUA NSFH --CPUA NSMKL --CPUA NSWVH --CPUA + Good Results on Proposed Teicher/Shirin move MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSMAD --CPUA 04/22/86 12:45:02 To: NSMAD --CPUA *** Reply to note of 04/22/86 12:29 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH Subject: Good Results on Proposed Teicher/Shirin move Sounds good to me. P Good Results on Proposed Teicher/Shirin move FROM: NSRBM --CPUA TO: NSJMP --CPUA 05/05/86 20:05:29 To: NSJMP --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER NOTE FROM: ROD B. MCDANIEL SUBJECT: Libya planning Understand from John Moellering Cap called you to complain about a letter on Libyan targeting we sent him. The letter was prepared for Don to sign to CPPG principals, setting forth (rather well, I thought) a political rationale for target priorities. It was given to Moellering unsigned, so that he could react to it before it was sent officially. (I was going to personally give it to him on saturday, but got busy and sent it by messenger--probably a mistake on my part). Apparently he gave a copy to Armitage (the other addressee on the as yet unsigned memo) who must have given it to Cap. Thus, another attempt to find a way to conduct a dialogue bites the dust. Thoughts?? FROM: NSJMP --CPUA TO: NSRBM --CPUA 05/05/86 21:47:04 To: NSRBM --CPUA *** Reply to note of 05/05/86 20:05 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: JOHN POINDEXTER Subject: Libya planning Lesson learned: you can't trust the g-d Pentagon. Cap taold me that David Martin apparently had a copy of it. Cap was complaining about the memo - not its contents but the fact that it was put on paper. I turned the argument around and told him the real concern was that it leaked. Do not distribute other copies and let's deny the existence of any approved paper. Other than that we should say we do not talk about contingencies. Give Moellering that guidance. Also Don Jones. cc: NSDRF --CPUA DON FORTIER NSEPD --CPUA ED DJEREJIAN FROM: NSRBM --CPUA TO: NSDRF --CPUA 05/06/86 07:44:52 To: NSDRF --CPUA DONALD FORTIER NOTE FROM: ROD B. MCDANIEL Subject: Libya planning *** Forwarding note from NSRBM --CPUA 05/05/86 20:05 *** To: NSJMP --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER NOTE: FROM: ROD B. MCDANIEL SUBJECT: Libya planning Understand from John Moellering Cap called you to complain about a letter on Libyan targeting we sent him. The letter was prepared for Don to sign to CPPG principals, setting forth (rather well, I thought) a political rationale for target priorities. It was given to Moellering unsigned, so that he could react to it before it was sent officially. (I was going to personally give it to him on saturday, but got busy and sent it by messenger--probably a mistake on my part). Apparently he gave a copy to Armitage (the other addressee on the as yet unsigned memo) who must have given it to Cap. Thus, another attempt to find a way to conduct a dialogue bites the dust. Thoughts?? FROM: NSRBM --CPUA TO: NSJMP -- CPUA 05/06/86 09:47:16 To: NSJMP --CPUA *** Reply to note of 05/05/86 21:47 NOTE FROM: ROD B. MCDANIEL Subject: Libya planning Reference the lead angle, we don't believe the paper Cap talked to you leaked. No copies were distributed except the one hand delivered to Moellering which he in turn gave to Armitage--the leak more likely resulted from the week-old Navy brief on TLAM options given to the JCS. Non-paper status confirmed. MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSVMC --CPUA 05/08/86 07:49:38 To: NSVMC --CPUA *** Reply to note of 05/06/86 11:23 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH Subject: CIA C/T Actions Since the whole world is full of C/T exerpts this comes as no surprise. I wd note, however, that if CIA wants ensue that they have interagency backing for a C/T project, they need to raise it in the OSG, the group that was created for this very purpose. To date, they have not and therefore shd not be surprised that people like Clair take bureaucratic advantage of the situation to kill good ideas. cc: NSVMC --CPUA CIA C/T Actions FROM: NSRBM --CPUA TO: NSJMP --CPUA 06/09/86 18:43:26 To: NSJMP --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER NOTE FROM: ROD B. MCDANIEL Subject: yemen contingency planning *** Forwarding note from NSHRT --CPUA 06/09/86 16:11 *** To: NSRBM --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER NSWRP --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER NOTE FROM: Howard Teicher SUBJECT: yemen contingency planning in recent weeks, we have seen indications that another eruption of violence in aden is likely. the best bet is that disgruntled junior military officers will stage a coup d'etat aglinst the political leadership. unforuntately, these officers are strictly pro-soviet in their orientation, leaving us little ground to plow as far as they are concerned. however, no one sitting in washington should believe that we can genuinely appreciate yemeni politics without first hand contact and serious analysis. to that end, shireen and i encouraged state to try to think creatively in advance of crisis regarding how we might shape and/or take advantage of renewed violence and political instability in aden. significantly, shultz has also been pressing nea to come up with some ideas--so far to no avail according to the dasd creekmore. however, now that we have proposed some specific operational ideas, nea intends to take another look at the problem for shultz. at a minimum, we believe it is essential for us to consult with the saudis and yemenis now to stimulate their thinking, let them know we are remain willing to cooperate, and try to position ourselves to weaken the soviets in aden when the fighting resumes. we will keep you posted, though you might want to mention our activist orientation to shultz in order to give him more leverage over his comatose bureau. cc: NSDBR --CPUA NSSRT --CPUA NSDBR --CPUA NSVMC --CPUA NSPWR --CPUA NSRBM --CPUA DONALD FORTIER NSWRP --CPUA DONALD FORTIER cc: NSPBT --CPUA FROM: NSBSR --CPUA TO: NSPBT --CPUA 06/10/86 19:10:31 To: NSPBT --CPUA -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: BRENDA REGER SUBJECT: Seimer/willens case Siemer has filed a memo ln opposition to our motion for protective order which is something over an inch thick! Lepley of DOJ thinks we will need to file another declaration (unclas) and a classified one as well. Our turn around time is short & he wants to meet on it not later than Monday. In addition, rec'd call from state and they too are now being sued by Seimer on the duplicat request she sent them -- I have agreed to meet with their people tomorrow afternoon to discuss the cases but there are some major problems---apparently the FOIA folks at state have been representing to Seimer that they had sent us and others piles of docs. for review but the Secretariat peolple at state had not mailed them out (6-8 months delay) and they now want us to do a rush job to get them out of their self created hole! Also they have apparently reviewed and released some material "inadvertently" which "may be NSC and White House" (Who needs enemies !!!) material that duplicates what is involved in our denied documents in our court case. Would you like to attend the meeting (3:00 Wed.) to insure that I do not throw any of them off my balcony if a fit of rage? cc: NSRBM --CPUA NSWRP --CPUA FROM: NSPWR --CPUA TO: NSJMP --CPUA 07/03/86 13:59:46 To: NSJMP --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER NOTE FROM: Peter Rodman SUBJECT: Shultz Trip to Middle East Further to my earlier note: Dennis, it turns out, is concerned that if I go on the Shultz trip it will weaken his effectiveness in the bureaucracy. In fairness I pass this information on to you because, as I mentioned in my note, Dennis had not objected when I raised this with him before. Charlie, however, has indicated that Shultz strongly prefers to have me a long on this one. You may want to discuss this with Shultz when you talk to him. I have argued to Charlie that Dennis is good, has your complete confidence, and should be regarded in the bureaucracy as your man, whatever happens with this trip. FROM: NSJMP --CPUA TO: NSPWR --CPUA 07/04/86 17:51:42 To: NSPWR --CPUA *** Reply to note of 07/03/86 13:59 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: JOHN POINDEXTER Subject: Shultz Trip to Middle East Thanks, Peter. George and I talked about his trip, but-we didn't discuss this aspect. I prefer that you go on this trip since you will probably have more influence on George. Dennis should go with VP. Your message to Charlie about Dennis was very appropriate. I will talk to Dennis over the weekend. FROM: NSJL --CPUA TO: NSKED --CPUA 07/08/86 10:49:06 To: NSKED --CPUA NOTE FROM: John Lenczowski SUBJECT: DAS for Intelligence at DOE The latest I have on this job opening is that one of the Under Secretaries at DOE has a person lined up for this job -- somebody named Walsh who is a GS-15 at INS and who reportedly is not qualified for this position. Thus, the Under Secretary in question has apparently requested that the job description be rewritten so that it fits the qualifications of this fellow. Although I do not know who all these people are, my contact at DOE is very concerned that we will not be getting somebody who truly understands intelligence and security issues. If high jinks such as rewriting job descriptions are going on here, I think we have some cause to be concerned.Have you talked to Bill Martin about this? FROM: NSCPC --CPUA TO: NSOLN --CPUA 08/19/86 19:30:03 To: NSOLN --CPUA NSRLE --CPUA NOTE FROM: Craig P. Coy Subject: libya this is likely based on my conversation with stark who called me asking about our meeting with armitage today. stark had called rich's office seeking info on planned exercises near libya in order to work up a time line on activities for the new libya nsdd. rich's office didn't respond because rich said he was working on the paper and had just left a meeting at nsc (osg?). i suggested to stark that perhaps rich was looking at the nsdd and the designation of the osg as the coordinating body for specific activities for countering terrorism. i am sure that shot across the bow was received by howard too. welcome home. *** Forwarding note from NSHRT --CPUA 08/19/86 18:47 *** To: NSOLN --CPUA NOTE FROM: Howard Teicher SUBJECT: libya we must talk tomorrow about libya and the management of our respective efforts.welcome home. cc: NSRLE --CPUA NSCPC --CPUA FROM: NSHRT --CPUA TO: NSPBT --CPUA 08/28/86 15:11:27 To: NSPBT --CPUA NOTE FROM: Howard Teicher SUBJECT: walters trip papers while murphy had agreed to provide me with bootleg copies of the trip papers to pass to the admiral, nick platt subsequently directed that no papers be provided to us until armacost and whitehead had personally cleared off on them. armacost has only just returned from the soviet talks and hasn't begun to focus on the walters materials yet. in order to have any hope of getting them to you before you depart callfornia, we need to get the papers by cob tonight. frank lavin is informing s/s of this right now. i passed the same along to chris ross, armacost's exec, who says he's doing all he can to move the process along. the bottom line is that kissell will not be able to carry them out but i hope to be able to dacom them tonight or by oob tomorrow. what a drill. stay tuned. FROM: NSVMC --CPUA TO: NSRFB --CPUA 09/05/86 15:38:54 To: NSRFB --CPUA NOTE FROM: Vincent Cannistraro SUBJECT: JMP Instructions On NSDD The Admiral has written me a note in response to the briefing memo I prepared for him for his meeting with Casey. His points are: A. Shultz would not agree with the State position reflected by Jim Michel that the IG/N must assess the adequacy of CIA's internal accounting standards. B. The concern should be satisfied by a one time briefing by CIA's comptroller, Danny Childs, before the formally constituted RIG on Nicaragua. C. NSC will provide the executive secretariat service to the IG/N from within existing resources. I will proceed with working the NSDD action, leaving State's draft intact except for the language on accounting standards. As the executive secretariat function is not in the draft, I will leave it out.(Any successful reclaimer by Shultz to JMP will not be affected by the NSDD text that way) I suspect, but don't know, that JMP's note constitutes a response to the request for us to meet with him. FROM: NSWRP --CPUA TO: NSJMP --CPUA 09/05/86 16:00:32 To: NSJMP --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER NOTE FROM: BOB PEARSON Subject: Nicaraguan Program *** Forwarding note from NSVMC --CPUA 09/05/86 15:17 *** To: NSRBM --CPUA NSRBM --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER NSWRP --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER NOTE FROM: Vincent Cannistraro Subject: Nicaraguan Program CIA, Defense, JCS are hard over against the proposal for a State Executive Secretariat for the IG/N. They, and we, have argued that this is an NSC function, that the IG/N meetings will be held at the White House, and that it represents an attempt by State to gather every last strand of control over the process and the program. While I have no philosophical objections to a State executive secretary for the IG/N, I do believe that alienating all the other agencies involved in the program will only lead to divisiveness, sniping, and occasional bureaucratic sabotage in the future. While the decision may be moot at this point, I still believe that our position should continue to be that it is an NSC function and recommend so to the President. *** Forwarding note from NSRFB --CPUA 09/05/86 09:25 *** To: NSRBM --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER NSWRP --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER NOTE FROM: Raymond Burghardt SUBJECT: Nicaraguan Program I understand from Jim Michel (State/ARA) that when Shultz visited Haiti, he offered to Amb. Clay McMananway the Job of executive secretary of the IG-Nicaragua. McManaway, who otherwise would be an unemployed senior officer, accepted. Therefore, it appears that while we are weighing the fact that you, Casey and Weinberger (or at least Ikle) prefer to give the NSC staff the exec. sec. function, Shultz has simply assumed that if State chairs, State can name the exec. sec. since Shultz has become personally engaged on this point, I suspect he will dig in his heels on it. I personally think is there is some logic to keeping chairman and exec. sec. in the same agency (which is normal) and recommend that we concede to State on this point. Of course, if CIA and Defense are adamant, the NSC staff option can be presented to the President in your memo forwarding the NSDD. cc: NSVMC --CPUA cc: NSRFB --CPUA cc: NSPWR --CPUA NSWAC --CPUA NSPBT --CPUA NSRFB --CPUA NSVMC --CPUA NSAGK --CPUA ALTON G. KEEL FROM: NSCPC --CPUA TO: NSRLE 09/11/86 19:13:02 To: NSRLE --CPUA NSOLN --CPUA -- CONFIDENTIAL -- NOTE FROM: Craig P. Coy Subject: CONVERSATION WITH MOELLERING i suggest someone talk to the post on the need for a forward deployment ability, but i can't think of anyone who would do it. let's not get too teary eyed over oakley's departure, this smacks of his double-dealings with the task force. i think the time is right for a jmp note to cap and crowe copy to the presidenton how we still have not improved our capability even if all of us bureaucrats think our little empire is working smoothly while people are being murdered on airplanes as [Deleted, (b)(1)(c) exemption] drone on through the night. we could just say forget [Deleted, (b)(1)(c) exemption] as irrelevant and [Deleted, (b)(1)(c) exemption] get on with it. i have a sinking feeling menarchik may be right. this is unsat. *** Forwarding note from NSRLE --CPUA 09/11/86 18:55 *** To: NSOLN --CPUA NSCPC --CPUA NOTE FROM: Robert L. Earl SUBJECT: CONVERSATION WITH MOELLERING In advising Moellering of Bremer's agreement to take on the coordination of the "lessons learned", the General stated that the draft paper we circulated was dead wrong [Deleted, (b)(1)(c) exemption] was NOT late. I expressed surprise, and he explained that the reason they weren't late was that there was no [Deleted, (b)(1)(c) exemption] (That's pretty neat -- no standard, so how can we possibly be "below standard" ...? I think I'm gonna be sick.) Anyway, I also dug out of him that the [One line deleted, (b)(1)(c) exemption] Apparently, Oakley had told Moellering privately that State opposed [Deleted, (b)(1)(c) exemption] (Nice guy -- didn't say that in front of the OSG two weeks ago...) Bottom line is that JCS [Deleted, (b)(1)(c) exemption] are ecstatic about how smoothly the deployment went this time, and there ain't nuthin' that can be tweaked to make any improvements.... Also, JCS thinks it's a horrible idea to have JMP call Cap direct -- won't give the bureaucracy time to do its thing.... (Anybody wanna join me in being sick?) FROM: NSCPC --CPUA TO: NSOLN --CPUA 09/24/86 17:20:39 To: NSOLN --CPUA NSRLE --CPUA NOTE FROM: Craig P. Coy SUBJECT: Libyan RICO Suit Ollie, you signed off on Elaine's memo to JMP re. this issue. In that memo and in the Rodman meeting it was mentioned that Treasury could attend the next TIWG meeting when the subject is on the agenda. I just took a call from Russell Munk from Treasury (Gen Counsel) who said Elaine Morton had called him to inform him of the TWIG meeting tomorrow and that they should attend. I told him we were still working on the meeting and would get back to him. He said Kimmitt would be the one to attend and that he would not be back in town until Friday. Isaid we may be able to shift the meeting to then, but will get back. I think we should bring him in at the tale end of the meeting to discuss the matter. Shift Gears: Allan Gerson came over this afternoon and I let him know how the process on terrorist related issues was handled and that this one (as Rodman had agreed) would fall into our basket. He said he would bring the issue up with Meese at a meeting attended by Trott and try to get EM to agree to pursue the issue as long as it did not interfere with other priority operations or sacrifice intell sources and methods. He said he would call back with EM's decision. He was hesitant to have Treasury involved too soon because they had tried to kill the Libyan sanctions program. I said that our interagency group could work that problem. I added that we do not oppose the idea necessarily but that we just want to make sure we do it right and not run off and screw something up by not coordinating our efforts. I hope St.Martin can puts Sullivan back into his box.By the way Gerson claims he is Meese's national security guy and responsible for terrorism. I said we thought Trott and Revell were the people, but we would work with anyone Meese wants us too. Nice to see other places just as fucked up over areas of responsibilities. OUT. FROM: NSCPC --CPUA TO: NSPWR --CPUA 09/25/86 12:14:26 To: NSPWR --CPUA NOTE FROM: Craig P. Coy Subject: Libya and RICO Investigation Ann Rondeau just called to say Meese has agreed to proceed in principle with the RICO investigation and that it would be handled in the established channels as a terrorist related criminal investigation. Ollie and I met with Trott to discuss the issue with him and gave him a copy of the information we had on the issue. Trott was copied by Gerson on the package you had distributed however it had not been brought to his attention. I do not know how State got a copy. As a said in an earlier note, we will meet next week with Treasury (Kimmitt) and the OSG to get interagency agreement to assist Justice in the investigation. I have a call into Treasury now. *** Forwarding note from NSPWR --CPUA 09/25/86 11:45 *** To: NSCPC --CPUA NOTE FROM: Peter Rodman SUBJECT: Libya and RICO Investigation The Justice Department (OLC) memo that I received from Alan Gerson a few weeks ago was given to me on a confidential basis. I passed it to a few NSC staff members for in-house consideration. Now I am told that when Gerson briefed the AG on the issue today, Steve Trott pulled out a copy of MY memo to the NSC staffers which enclosed the OLC paper. And at least two people in the Legal Adviser's office at State have copies of the OLC paper. Needless to say, this compounds the risk of leaks as well as representing a gross breach of the confidentiality which I owed Gerson. I would like to know who has passed this paper around to other agencies, including a copy of my memo to NSC staffers. cc: MORTON --VAXB NSHRT --CPUA SULLIVAN--VAXB cc: NSOLN --CPUA NSRLE --CPUA FROM: NSCPC --CPUA TO: NSRBM --CPUA 09/30/86 15:30:10 To: NSRBM --CPUA NOTE FROM: Craig P. Coy Subject: ADM HOLLOWAY Rod, when we spoke on Saturday on the Iceland Treaty you sounded a little surprised in my involvement. I assumed you were aware of this note from JMP. On the first issue it is done and JMP was informed as such. On the maritime issue, I explained that this would be separate and distinct from the terrorism business and I understand Ollie discussed it with JHP with nobody seeing any problems in doing both of them. Should we discuss this too? *** Forwarding note from NSJMP --CPUA 09/03/86 13:56 *** To: NSCPC --CPUA -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: JOHN POINDEXTER SUBJECT: ADM HOLLOWAY I had lunch today with Adm Holloway and one of the things we discussed was the new version of NSDD-32. I would like for the Adm to read the new document. Please call him and arrange to take a copy over to him when he has time to read it that day. Then you should pick it up the same day so that he doesn't have a storage problem. Please keep it close hold that he is reviewing it, but I want to get his reaction as a military member of the Packard Commission as to whether or not we have faithfully carried out the Commission's recommendation in the strategy area. New subject: I would like for you to fill in behind Richard Levine on the merchant marine issues. Keep in contact with the Adm and keep me advised. I want to follow action on S2662 on the Hill. Is DOT doing what they should on this subject? cc: NSOLN --CPUA FROM: NSCPC --CPUA TO: NSOLN --CPUA 09/30/86 16:45:50 To: NSOLN --CPUA NOTE FROM: Craig P. Coy Subject: ADM HOLLOWAY We may be making progress. Yes? *** Forwarding note from NSRBM --CPUA 09/30/86 16:34 *** To: NSCPC --CPUA *** Reply to note of 09/30/86 15:30 NOTE FROM: ROD B. MCDANIEL Subject: ADM HOLLOWAY No, I understand -- didn't realize I sounded surprised--nothing surprises me!! MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSRBM --CPUA 10/01/86 12:04:13 To: NSRBM --CPUA NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH SUBJECT: Staff coordination Yesterday we talked about a matter of some concern re one of my memos having been circulated to another member of the staff w/o the courtesy of a call from the secretariat as to whether or not such action was appropriate. I thought we also agreed that this whole business of "staff coordination" was a two way street. As a related matter, you know that I have continued to work on the Nicaragua Project. I am now advised by State, Defense and CIA that today there is to be a PCG on this very issue, that the appropriate paperwork has been prepared and circulated and North was afforded neither the opportunity to comment nor concur. This is an intolerable situation. It is not conducive to effective action on this issue and it leads inevitably to a less informed decision process. In this case it is not a matter of a staff member trying to insinuate himself into a matter for the first time. For over 2 1/2 years I was the sole point of contact within the USG on this matter. While I recognize that the legislation we worked so hard to pass has changed this situation, it DOES NOT, according to my understanding, mean that I am no longer a participant in this process. If my perception is incompatible with yours please advise and I will again address the matter with the Admiral for clarification. O Staff coordination FROM: NSCPC --CPUA TO: NSOLN --CPUA 10/09/86 10:23:02 To: NSOLN --CPUA NOTE FROM: Craig P. Coy SUBJECT: High Cover Tom Harvey has broached the subject of coming under the Cockell wing again. He thinks Bill is waiting for a response from you on his offer to help. I got the distinct impression that Bill is not a "Blinky" fan and wants to facilitate getting the NSC back to some sembalance of respectability (tough job). I suggest you get back to him and find out where our mutual interests can be served. By the way, Tom's blue badge is being held up by Jon Miller over the fight over who can name people to come over here. Apparently the new policy is that no by name orders will be done in the future and Tom is the test case. cc: NSRLE --CPUA MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSFH --CPUA 10/20/86 17:23:11 To: NSFH --CPUA -- CONFIDENTIAL -- NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH Subject: CALL FROM [Deleted, (b)(1)(c) exemption] Pls print for me to take w/ me tomorrow *** Forwarding note from NSRLE --CPUA 10/16/86 17:42 *** To: NSOLN --CPUA NOTE FROM: Robert L. Earl SUBJECT: CALL FROM [Deleted, (b)(1)(c) exemption] The fool's want to get Nir to grease skids in advance on their request for flights clearance to Tel Aviv before they submit the paperwork. I've got the info when you're ready to let Nir know.... I recommend you DON't tell him the flight plan data when you first tell him the thing is approved, however; it's so detailed he'll know we held out on him. Suggest you tell him I'm working w/ the fools now to develop that info and we'll pass it to him as soon as we have it. Then we can call him later tonight or tomorrow. New subject: The fool's are leaning forward as far as they can -- e.g. the toes are apparently being palletized in Alabama already -- but they can't get everything going until they have the money ($2.037m) in hand. They've asked for a heads up when Copp/Abe deposit it in their Berne account. I've codedup this request for a heads up/ confirmation and sent it to Bob M. on the KL-43. ] CALL FROM [Deleted, (b)(1)(c) exemption] MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSRLE --CPUA 10/20/86 17:23:47 To: NSRLE --CPUA *** Reply to note of 10/16/86 17:42 -- CONFIDENTIAL -- NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH Subject: CALL FROM [Deleted, (b)(1)(c) exemption] Good. I'll bug copp. L CALL FROM [Deleted, (b)(1)(c) exemption] MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSFH --CPUA 10/21/86 11:56:14 To: NSFH --CPUA NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH Subject: Draft Presidential Correspondence Has anyone seen this? *** Forwarding note from NSWT --CPUA 10/21/86 10:41 *** To: NSOLN --CPUA NOTE FROM: William Tobey SUBJECT: Draft Presidential Correspondence Could you prof comments/clearance on #7422, response to Farnsworth to Helen Skaltsounis (NSHGS). Thanks much. cc: NSRLM --CPUA NSCPC --CPUA Draft Presidential Correspondence MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSFH --CPUA 10/23/86 09:00:08 To: NSFH --CPUA *** Reply to note of 10/22/86 16:18 NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH Subject: Baby Girl Fortier Arrival Would you please get a stirling silver Christening cup engraved w/ her name on the side and our initials on the bottom. I will pay you for whatever it costs. If true to form the engraving will cost more than the cup. Baby Girl Fortier MSG FROM: NSOLN --CPUA TO: NSPWH --CPUA 10/23/86 09:03:12 To: NSPWH --CPUA *** Reply to note of 10/22/86 19:11 NOTE FROM: OLIVER NORTH Subject: Backgrounder with BBC As in all these requests, if JMP wants me to do it, I will. @ Backgrounder with BBC FROM: NSHRT --CPUA TO: NSVMC --CPUA 10/22/86 09:23:40 To: NSRBM --CPUA *** Reply to note of 10/22/86 07:49 -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: Howard Teicher Subject: Yemen i have been in touch with nea and cia regularly. both bridle at suggestions that we even think about being more activist. [Eight lines deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] it's something they{re always complaining about. meanwhile,i suggest that dennis raise our continuied interest with dick murphy. maybe the sun will rise in the west for a change. cc: NSVMC --CPUA NSDBR --CPUA FROM: NSCPC --CPUA TO: NSRLE --CPUA 10/23/86 20:22:03 To: NSRLE --CPUA NSOLN --CPUA NOTE FROM: Craig P. Coy SUBJECT: Holloway Review Doug Menarchik and I met with Holloway to discuss the VP (Doug) idea to have him come back to review our terrorist capabilities in light of VPTF and with a look to the future. It was agreed that JLH could do this in January, if the VP sent him a letter asking him and JMP concurs in the letter and his coming. JLH suggested he would do this with these points: - it would not be public and would be a private series of meetings with the players beginning with the NSC - the form would be an appraisal/evaluation, it would not be a checklist review of the NSDD. It would be a positive, forward-look at how we might do better or that we are OK - the product would be a private close-hold letter from JLH to the VP with a least a copy to NSC unless the VP says otherwise. - he would like to have a desk and some place to put classified material. - he did think that he is embarassed that we didn't define terrorism and wanted to fix that in a subtle way. - Doug will be pushing his who is in charge idea and the need for a framework to resolve interagency disputes in responding to events. - I mentioned that JLH may want to look again at the time-distance problem We should advise JMP to make sure he has no problems with this. I think the timing may be good for our push on forward deployment. FROM: NSHRT --CPUA TO: NSVMC --CPUA 10/22/86 09:24:00 To: NSVMC --CPUA NSDBR --CPUA NOTE FROM: Howard Teicher Subject: Yemen see my reply and suggested actions. *** Forwarding note from NSRBM --CPUA 10/22/86 07:49 ** To: NSHRT --CPUA -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: ROD B. MCDANIEL SUBJECT: Yemen [Two lines deleted, (b)(1)(s) exemption] Assume you are monitoring/stimulating inter-agency focus . Anything we need to do?? cc: STMARTIN--VAXB FROM: NSAGK --CPUA TO: NSJMP --CPUA 11/04/86 13:49:11 To: NSJMP --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER NOTE FROM: Alton G. Keel Subject: Elliott Abrams on Chile John, as you know Elliott called me on this ( from Chile) and then had Jim Michels follow-up with another call. I had you guidance based on Jackie's memo which I used to respond to Abrams. Both he and Jim said we would probably be hearing from Shultz. So far no word unless Shultz has pressed with you. I believe this is another case where Elliott is out in front of Shultz and Shultz at best is giving lip service to issue.Point is , if Shultz wants to raise with you then okay, but we (you) should not fall in trap of letting Ass't Secy's or Undersecy's raise issues directly with you in the name of a Cabinet Officer (especially after they've already raised with your Deputies). Over to you. *** Forwarding note from NSJMP --CPUA 11/04/86 11:05 *** To: NSFEG --CPUA FLORENCE GANTT -- SECRET -- NOTE FROM: JOHN POINDEXTER Subject: Elliott Abrams on Chile Ok. I will see Elliot. *** Forwarding note from NSPWR --CPUA 11/04/86 09:50 *** To: NSJMP --CPUA JOHN M. POINDEXTER NOTE FROM: Peter Rodman SUBJECT: Elliott Abrams on Chile Elliott Abrams wants a brief appointment with you this week to talk about Chile and his recommendation for a US-sponsored "balanced" UNGA resolution on Chile. He feels strongly that such a step is essential to preserve our position on the Hill. Richard Schifter of the State Human Rights Bureau came to see Jackie and me yesterday with the same pitch (although Schifter argued more in terms of "maintaining our credibility" with the moderate Chilean opposition). Jackie and I argued that such playing to the gallery only eroded our influence with the pivotal junta members and put us on a treadmill of (probably escalating) steps we would be called upon to take to "prove our credibility" over and over again. Elliott and Schifter also argued that our failure to sponsor the resolution would do great damage to our position. Perhaps true, but it is not our fault that our people have been spreading the

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.