Warren:

Here are my comments on Draft HOP Document Request 4:

RE Para 1: suggest you move the phrase "all Small Group meetings" to right after the
phrase Principals' Committee meetings. So, it should read something like: "for all
Principals' Committee meetings, including Small Group meetings and Deputies'
Committee meetings from January 1, 1998 to September 20, 2001." That's because the
Small Group was a subset of the Principals' Committee, basically National Security
Advisor, Tenet, Chairman JCS, SecDef. Note, there was also a Small Group within the
CSG: Clarke, Cofer Black, senior JCS rep, senior OSD rep, but I don't think that's what
we are talking about in this Para. I assume this particular Para is designed to give us a
pretty good idea of the numbers of PCs and DCs that were held during the period
specified.

RE Para 2: In this Para, I don't think we can ask for documentation produced by "CSG
participants" because the EOP/NSC would not have documents produced by non-NSC
members of the CSG when they did not circulate their documents to the White House.
This is the Para where we are trying to get at the gap that Philip identified, i.e.,
documents that may have been produced by a "Plus One" at a PC or DC who did not send
the document forward to his Deputy or Principal but rather submitted it as a "memo to a
file". I think it should read something like "All notes, memoranda, notes for the file, or
other related documentation produced by NSC officials responsible for counterterrorism
in connection with attendance at Principals' or Deputies Committee meetings on UBL,
al-Qa'ida, Afghanistan (including the Taliban and/or the Northern Alliance), Pakistan,
Saudi Arabia, and or Sudan from January 1, 1998 to September 20, 2001. This request
includes any documents as specified above whether or not they were ever reviewed by
the National Security Advisor, or Deputy National Security Advisor."

To capture similar documents related to key CSG meetings suggest a new Para 3 along
following lines:

3. "All notes, memoranda, notes for the file, or other related documentation
produced by NSC officials responsible for counterterrorism memorializing key
CSG meetings on UBL, al-Qa'ida, Afghanistan (including the Taliban and/or the
Northern Alliance), Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and or Sudan from January 1, 1998
to September 20, 2001. This request includes any documents as specified above
whether or not they were ever reviewed by the National Security Advisor, or
Deputy National Security Advisor."

Warren, parallel language contained in 2 and 3 above should be used in new document
requests to DOJ, FBI, State, CIA, and DoD. Obviously, paragraphs in those requests to
different agencies will need to be modified/tailored so that they don't say "documents
produced by NSC officials responsible for counterterrorism", but instead will say
documents produced by CIA [or FBI, DOJ, State, DoD as the case may be] officials with
responsible for counterterrorism who accompanied their department's Principal or
Deputies to PC's or DCs on [our favorite range for topics: ubl, a-Q, afghan, pak, etc., the
usual formulation] from January 1, 1998 to September 20, 2001". They should also
contain parallel ending language to that in proposed draft of EOF Doc Req 4: This
request includes any documents as specified above whether or not they were ever
reviewed by the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Defense [Director or Deputy Director
of CIA; Secretary or Deputy Secretary of State; AG or DAG DoJ; Director of FBI;
Chairman or Vice Chairman of JCS, etc.]"

Your PENUMBRA ISSUE, which would now be Para 4: my only comment is that you
need to review this language against EOP 2 and EOF 3 to ensure that we are not asking
for something we have already asked for. It's a bit unclear to me. Perhaps we've asked
for it in those previous requests. I'm just not sure.

The main thing for all the points above Warren is that for this new request to EOP,
and for the parallel requests to other agencies, we need to have it leap off the page that
we are asking for different things than we asked for previously. We don't want to be in
the position where Dan Levin and other Points of Contact for agencies are calling Dan
Marcus, Steve, Warren or us asking us to clarify because they can't discern that the
new requests are fundamentally different—asking for other documents not previously
covered—-from earlier doc requests. It's got to be clear to them. So, suggest you follow
what I've written or come up with something more elegant. Just ensure that what we
are asking for is clear and won't muddy the waters further.

Work with our colleagues on their respective requests. Share this note with Alexis and
Bonnie. Bonnie can do hers after her return from our junket.

When you feel it's in good shape move it forward to the front office. Email Philip telling
him that we have acted on his request to cover the gap he identified.

Thanks Warren,

Mike