Page 1 of 1

Yoel Tobin
_ o» r, --"" 9/11 Closed by Statute
From: Steve Dunne . y

Sent: Tuesday. May 04, 2004 1:55 PM ,-•"""

Cc: Dan.Levin@usdoj.gov; Dan Marcus; Team 1; DiannaCampagna

Subject: DC! document request no. 56

| [Attached as a Word document is DCI document request no. 56. Please call Yoei
Tobin at 202-331-4071 with any questions about this request and to arrange for production. Feel free
to call Dan or me as well if any issues arise. Thanks. Steve

5/4/2004
Thomas H. Kean DCI DOCUMENT REQUEST No. 56
CHAIR

Lee H. Hamilton
VICE CHAIR The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (the
"Commission") requests that the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI or the
Richard Ben- Veniste
"respondent") provide the Commission with copies of the following documents
Fred F. Fielding no later than May 19, 2004 (the "production date"):
Jamie S. Gorelick
1. Analyses and intelligence reports relating to Iraqi relationships,
Skde Gorton if any, with Usama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and/or their associates
Bob Kerrey or affiliates prior to September 11, 2001.
John F. Lehman The Commission requests that the items described above be provided as soon as
Timothy J. Roemer they are available, even though all requested items may not be provided at the
same time, through means of a "rolling" production.
James R Thompson

If any requested items are withheld from production, even temporarily, based on
Philip D. Zelikow an alleged claim of privilege or for any other reason, the Commission requests
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
that the respondent, as soon as possible and in no event later than the production
date, identify and describe each such document or class of documents, as well as
the alleged basis for not producing it, with sufficient specificity to allow a
meaningful challenge to any such withholding.

If the respondent does not have possession, custody, or control of any

documents requested above but has information about where such documents
may be located, the Commission requests that the respondent provide such
information as soon as possible and in no event later than the production date.

If the respondent has any questions or concerns about the interpretation or scope
of these document requests, the Commission requests that any such questions or
concerns be raised with the Commission as soon as possible so that any such
issues can be addressed and resolved prior to the production date.

May 4, 2004 Daniel Marcus

General Counsel

TEL (202) 331-4060

FAX (202) 296-5545
www.9-1 lcommission.gov
 Page 1 of 2

Yoel Tobin
prom. I I .- ""/9/11 Closed by Statute
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 9:02 AM
To: Yoel Tobin / I
Cc: Dan Marcus; Team 1; Steve Dunne; Doug MaciEachin; Philip Zelikow
Subject: Re: further on DCI DR#51 document? / i;

yoel: thanks for your note, i'll put out the production tasking on those items today so that they can be
produced during the next week. / i

w/r/t the remaining items: I'm believeTil be able to locate items a., b. & p. (items a & b may need to be
viewed here at HQS if they turn out to be memo disserhs (which they appear to be from the serial
number)). / ;;

—but we lack sufficient information to locate items z., jaja., bb., cc. and dd. due to the way in which DoD
chose to reference those items in the paper--*we were not able to locate them for the,oversight
committees when they requested this information eitherUif DoD can give you further information, we'll
be happy to try and look iurther| | i \l Tobin wrote: '• \k you for

With regard to the documents that we requested; ;1

1}Thank you for pointing out that a few of the documents have already been provided. We
apologize for the duplication. \e agree with you that the documents that you identify as being beyond t

need to be produced. i \e provide us with the remaining documents tfisjt you have determined

to the request. ; i
4)We also look forward to your evaluation of the documents that you had not yet located at the
time of your e-mail below. ; \n addition, we also appreciate the suggestion that you rrtade in an e

to make a broader request in this area. Such a request Willibe forthcoming from Steve Dunne.
Thank you again for all your assistance! i
Message
From i
Sent:Wednesday, April 28, 20045:31 PM
To: Front Office
Cc: Dan.Levin@usdoj.govJ
Subject: further on DCI DR#51 documents
I've reviewed the documents specifically requested in DCI DR#51. Below
are my findings broken down into 4 categories:
Docj4menlsJPreyipusly_,Proyidedi

•Letters t, v & y are all the same document. This document was provided
to the Commission on October 8, 2003 as bates number 1500099
•Letter u. was provided to the Commission on July 2, 2003 (pre-bates

5/1/2004
 Page 2 of2

stamping)
•Letter w. was provided twice to the Commission, the first time on July
9, 2003 (pre-bates stamping) and then again on October 8, 2003 as
bates number 1500100

Documents out of the scope of the Commission's mandate in that they

report information relating to 2002 operations and have nothing at all to
dowith 9/11+AQ evolution orthe^m 9/11 conte^o^AQ's relationship
withlraq:
•Letters e, q, x & ee.

Notyet located for evaluation:

•Letters a., b., p., z., aa., bb., cc. & dd.

The remaining documents I find to be within the scope of the Commission's

mandate and will make available if this is still what the Commission wants
of this document request. Please advise.

5/1/2004
Message x Page 1 of 1

Yoel Tobin
From: Yoel Tobin
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 5:15 PM
To: Steve Dunne
Cc: Dan Marcus; Team 1; Philip Zelikow
Subject: DCI doc request (Iraq)

Steve,

Attached is a new document request for the DCI. As I mentioned to you earlier, the operative text is based on an
e-mail that Philip sent tq {several days ago. ^

Yoel

'9/11 Closed by S t a t u t e

4/29/2004
 DCI DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (the
"Commission") requests that the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI or "respondent")
provide the Commission with copies of the following documents no later than May ??,
2004 (the "production date"):

1. Any available analyses or information, whenever collected or disseminated, that is

pertinent to understanding Iraqi relationships with al Qaeda, UBL, or
associates/affiliates in or before September 2001.

The Commission requests that the documents requested above be provided as soon as
they are available, even though all requested documents may not be provided at the same
time, through means of a "rolling" production.

If any requested documents are withheld from production, even temporarily, based on an
alleged claim of privilege or for any other reason, the Commission requests that the
respondent, as soon as possible and in no event later than the production date, identify
and describe each such document or class of documents, as well as the alleged basis for
not producing it, with sufficient specificity to allow a meaningful challenge to any such
withholding.

If the respondent does not have possession, custody or control of any requested
documents but has information about where such documents may be located, the
Commission requests that the respondent provide such information as soon as possible
and in no event later than the production date.

If the respondent has any questions or concerns about the interpretation or scope of this
request, the Commission requests that any such questions or concerns be raised with the
Commission as soon as possible so that any such issues can be addressed and resolved
prior to the production date.

April ^2004

Daniel Marcus
General Counsel
 Page 1 of2
/J9/11 Closed by S t a t u t e

Yoel Tobin

From: Yoel Tobin / I \: Thursday. Aprjj 29, 20fl4 4:50 PM

To:
Cc: Dan MarcuS; Team 1; Steve Dunne; Doug MacEachin; Philip Zelikow
Subject: RE: further on DCI DR#51 documents

Thank you for your message below, which has been forwarded to me.

With regard to the documents that we requested:

1) Thank you for pointing out that ja few of the documents have already been provided. We apologize for
the duplication. i

2) We agree with you that the documents that you identify as being beyond the scope do not need to be
produced. I

3) Please provide us with the remaining documents that you have determined to be responsive to the
request. \) We also look forward to your evaluation of trie documents that you had not yet located at

e-mail below. \n addition, we also appreciate the suggestion that you made in an earlier e-mail that we may

broader request in this area. Such a request will be forthcoming from Steve Dunne.

Thank you again for all your assistance! i

Original Message i \

Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 5:31 PM

To: Front Office j
Cc: Dan.Levin@usdoj.govJ _____ |
Subject: further on DCI DR#5l documents

I've reviewed the documents specifically requested in DCI DR#5 1 . Below are my
findings broken down into 4 categories:

Documents Previously Provided:

Letters t, v & y are all the same document. This document was provided to the
Commission on October 8, 2003 as bates number 1500099
Letter u. was provided to the Commission on July 2, 2003 (pre-bates stamping)
Letter w. was provided twice to the Commission, the first time on July 9,2003
(pre-bates stamping) and then again on October 8, 2003 as bates number 1500100

Documents out of the scope of the Commission rs mandate in that they report

4/29/2004
 Page 2 of2

information relating to 2002 operations and have nothing at all to do with 9/11, AQ
evolution or thepre 9/11 context ofAQ's relationship with Iraq:

• Letters e, q, x & ee.

Not yet located for evaluation:

• Letters a., b., p., z., aa., bb., cc. & dd.

The remaining documents I find to be within the scope of the Commission's mandate and
will make available if this is still what the Commission wants of this document request.
Please advise.

4/29/2004
 Page 1 of 2

Yoel Tobin

From: Dan Marcus

Sent: Thursday, April 29,2004 12:07 PM
To: Yoel Tobin; Steve Dunne; Doug MacEachin
Cc: Team 1
Subject: RE: further on DCI DR#51 documents

Go ahead, but reserve Q on post-9/11 documents.

—Original Message—
From: Yoel Tobin
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 10:30 AM
To: Steve Dunne; Doug MacEachin f
Cc: Dan Marcus; Team 1
Subject: RE: further on Dd DR#51 documents

Steve:

Although Tom is the key person on this request, he is teaching until later today, and so I will move this
forward in that the initial response to| [seems fairly clear: Could she please provide us with the
documents that she finds to be within tne uommission's mandate and that have not been previously
produced? Also, could she please advise us of her progress in locating those items that she has not yet
located?

Do you want to send this request to her, or do you want us to?

For internal use only: We will discuss with Tom later .whether to disputed Evaluation that certain
requested documents are outside of the scope of the rnandate. Alsol lhad previously raised a
broader question of whether we are looking at an overly narrow set'bf documents. We will discuss that
later with Tom too. However, none of this should affect her providing the documents that we have
already asked for and that she conceded are within our itiandate.

Yoel ' / ; 9 / l l Closed by S t a t u t e

—Original Message ii
From: Steve Dunne f\: Thursday, April 29, 2004 9:52 AM ii

To: Doug MacEachin ii

Cc: Dan Marcus; Team 1 '
Subject: RE: further on DCI DR#51 documents I \e you responded to| pn this?

Original Message—
From
Sent::We
Wednesday, April 28, 2004 5:31 PM
To: Front Office . j
Cc; Dan.Levin@usdoj.govj |
Subject: further on DCI DR#51 documents

I've reviewed the documents specifically requested in DCI DR#51. Below are my
findings broken down into 4 categories:

4/29/2004
 Page 2 of2

Documents Previously Provided:

Letters t, v & y are all the same document. This document was provided
to the Commission on October 8, 2003 as bates number 1500099
Letter u. was provided to the Commission on July 2, 2003 (pre-bates
stamping)
Letter w. was provided twice to the Commission, the first time on July 9,
2003 (pre-bates stamping) and then again on October 8, 2003 as bates
number 1500100

Documents out of the scope of the Commission fs mandate in that they report
information relating to 2002 operations and have nothing at all to do with 9/11,
AQ evolution or thepre 9/11 context ofAQ's relationship with Iraq:

• Letters e, q, x & ee.

Not yet located for evaluation:

• Letters a., b., p., z., aa., bb., cc. & dd.

The remaining documents I find to be within the scope of the Commission's

mandate and will make available if this is still what the Commission wants of this
document request. Please advise.

4/29/2004
 Page 1 of 2
9/11 Closed by Statute

Yoel Tobin

From: Sarah Linden

Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 iO:53 AM
To: Yoel Tobin; Tom Cowling; Doug MacEachin; Nicole Grandrimo
Subject: RE: further on DCI DR#51 documents

The documents which I \s 0re out of scope all deal with recent intel on Zarqawi. I think we will have a
very hard time claiming thatithese are within our mandate, given his dubious AQ connection and the reports' late
dates. ; \\ .

Original Message \: Yoel Tobin i \: Thursday, Apjil 29, 2004 10:30 AM

To: Steve Dunne; Dbug M^cEactiin

Cc: Dan Marcus; Tegm 1 \: RE: furthej- on DQ DR#51 documents

Steve: i ! \h Tom is the jkey person on this request, he is teaching until later today, and so I will mov

forward in that the initial response to I feeems fairly dear: Could she please provide us with the
documents that she finds to bev.within the Commission's mandate and that have not been previously
produced? Also, coujd she please advise us of her progress,in locating those items that she has not yet
located? i |

Do you want to send jthis request to her, or do you want us to?

For internal use only:: We will discuss with Tom later whether to dispute! Evaluation that certain
requested documents! are outside|)f the scope of the mandate. Also] pad previously raised a
broader question of Whether we aif looking at an overly narrow set of documents. We will discuss that
later with Tom too. However, none of this should affect her providing the documents that we have
already asked for and! that she conceded are within our mandate.

Yoel

—Original Message— 1
From: Steve Dunne I
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 9:52 AM
To: Doug MacEachin I
Cc: Dan Marcus; Team 1 I
Subject: RE: further on DCI DR#51 documents

Have you responded to| pn this?

----- Original Message — 4

~
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 5:31 PM
To: Front Office j-1
Cc: Dan.Levin@usdoj.gov;| |
Subject: further on DCI DKffil documents

I've reviewed the documents specifically requested in DCI DR#5 1 . Below are my
findings broken down into 4 categories:

4/29/2004
 Page 2 of2

Documents Previously Provided:

Letters t, v & y are all the same document. This document was provided
to the Commission on October 8, 2003 as bates number 1500099
Letter u. was provided to the Commission on July 2, 2003 (pre-bates
stamping)
Letter w. was provided twice to the Commission, the first time on July 9,
2003 (pre-bates stamping) and then again on October 8, 2003 as bates
number 1500100

Documents out of the scope of the Commission's mandate in that they report
information relating to 2002 operations and have nothing at all to do with 9/11,
AQ evolution or thepre 9/11 context ofAQ's relationship with Iraq:

• Letters e, q, x & ee.

Not yet located for evaluation:

• Letters a., b., p., z., aa., bb., cc. & dd.

The remaining documents I find to be within the scope of the Commission's

mandate and will make available if this is still what the Commission wants of this
document request. Please advise.

4/29/2004
Yoel Tobin
From: Steve Dunne
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 10:46 AM
To: Yoel Tobin
Subject: FW: Iraq, the Commission, and DCI Document Request No. 51

fyi
Original Message
From: Doug MacEachin
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 5:29 PM
To: Steve Dunne
Subject: RE: Iraq, the Commission, and DCI Document Request No. 51

Steve
This is getting close to the silly side but let's have one more try. Obviously, the
broader request is preferable from the standpoint of covering all bets. But we are late
in the game and time is of the essence. (Including time spent on procedural debates.)

Where are we?

In an earlier request, DCI Document Request No. 6, para. 3c, we asked for "The best and
most current assessments available to the DCI regarding ... al Qaeda's links with foreign
governments or elements of foreign governments prior to September 11 attacks."
We just did a search of our e-files, and have determined that this earlier request
(plus JI materials) produced the items listed on DCI Document request No. 51 as t, u, y,
w, and bb. So, they are dropped. (Tom Dowling, who is the originator of the request, was
unaware of the details of the earlier request. Apology.)
We cannot find, and do not believe we have received, in the documents delivered
here, any of the FIRMs and TDs listed in DCI Document request 51, a thru s.
Nor can we find and do not believe we have received the other types of documents
listed as x, aa, cc, dd, and ee.
It is possible that we have received items y and z. But the way they were cited in
the Feith memo does not give enough for us to use these identities for the mechanism in
the Commission's document search system. (I.e, no title or ref number is given, only
"published report" for item y, and "memo" for item z, and the dates for each. Our system
will not search by date.)

Why the request?

Given the task as described in Phil's note below, our staff tried to be as specific as
possible in listing the document requested, and therefore used the ref. numbers that
appeared in the memo.
That request still stands, but with subtractions of items listed as t, u, y, w, and bb.
If somewhere there is a record that we do in fact have items y and z, we need a ref.
number we can use as a search identity.

As I said, time is of the essence now. Therefore, if there is to be any amendment, it

would be best if it were attached to the present list -- e.g. modification or amendment
for now, it should be as an "In addition, ... " statement, incorporating what is in the
last three paragraphs of Phil's memo. Or, we can send Phil's three paragraphs along as a
follow up or supplement, if that is necessary. One of the reasons for presenting the
search in form it was to save the time of a sweep, much as that might be desirable if time
permits.
As a fnal note: The earlier request was worded as it was in a specific effort to not be
over-demanding -- to focus on "The best and most current assessments available ... ." It
is the learning from experience, we would have made the request far more encompassing.

At your service.

Doug

The orginal

Original Message
 ../:9/ll Closed by Statute
From: Steve Dunne . ;
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2004 9:49 AM // ;
To: Team 1 /•' / i
Subject: FW: Iraq, the Commission, and DCI/Docum$nt Request No. 51
fyi _/ / j
— — «- — — Oj^^^y^sJ^^^^^aflflfi^^^^^^^MBWM^^^^^^^MMBBB^^^MH. !
From: I I
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 9:38 AM i
To: Philip Zelikow / i
Cc: Dan Marcus; Steve Dunne; dan..levin§usdoj .govj
Subject: Re: Iraq, the Commission, and DCI Document Request No. 51
philip: thanks for your note. Understanding now: what it is you are trying to accomplish,
why not frame your document .request as you did below on this broad issue rather than the
narrow request you made for/the documents cited Jin the Feith Memo? If I were in your
position that's what I'd do. I'd either withdraw DCI DR#51 and replace it or reframe it
in the context of your te'xt below. But that's obviously up to you.
As currently written your current document request #51 will only get you the documents
cited in the Feith Memo, and perhaps not all of ithem to the extent that they report post
9/11 information (some of these reports are from 2002 and 2003 and report only 9/11
situation). / I

If you'd like to/modify or amend your original (jocument request, please have Steve
transmit a formal modification, thanks,

Philip Zelik-bw wrote:

'
> On Friday you requested, on behalf of the CIA, an articulation of the
> Commission's position on why we need information on Iraq-al Qaeda
> connections, such as that contained in the source documents for the
> "Feith memo. "
>
> 1. The issue of Iraqi involvement, direct or indirect, in the 9/11
> attack is obviously a topic the Commission will need to address as
> thoroughly as possible.
>
> 2. The issue of Iraqi involvement in al Qaeda more generally was a
> topic discussed at the highest levels of the US government both in the
> months before the 9/11 attack and in the deliberations on the
> immediate response to the attack. Both areas fall within the
> Commission's mandate.
>
> 3. The Commission is also trying to understand the origins and
> development of al Qaeda, including its relationships with key states
> in the Muslim world. One of those states is Iraq. Our investigation
> extends to relationships with other states as well.

> We therefore need any available analyses or information, whenever it

> was collected or disseminated, if it is valuable to understanding
> Iraqi relationships with al Qaeda, UBL, or associates/affiliates in or
> before September 2001.

> In addition, if you or other officials at CIA know of other

> information we should examine, beyond that requested in this or our
> other document requests, please bring that information to our
> attention. We will oromptly prepare whatever added requests the CIA
> may need in order to get this information to the Commission.
2
> Philip Zelikow
> Executive Director
> National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
----- Original Message -----
From: Philip Zelikow
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 7:37 PM
To: Doug MacEachin; Yoel Tobin
Cc: Front Office
Subject: FW: further on Dd DR#51 documents

Let Dan and Steve know how you want them to proceed.

_
Sent: Wednesday, April us, zuiw 5:31 KM
To: Front Office _
Cc: Dan.levln@usdoj.govf \: further on Dd DR#51 documents

I've reviewed the documents specifically requested in DCI DR#51 . Below are my
findings broken down into 4 categories:

Documents Previously Provided:

Letters t, v & y are all the same document. This document was provided to the

A Commission on October 8, 2003 as bates number 1500099

Letter u. was provided to the Commission on July 2,2003 (pre-bates stamping)
Letter w. was provided twice to the Commission, the first time on July 9,2003
(pre-bates stamping) and then again on October 8, 2003 as bates number 1500100

Documents out of the scope of the Commission's mandate in that they report
information relating to 2002 operations and have nothing at all to do with 9/11, AO
evolution or the pre 9/11 context ofAO's relationship with Iraq:

• Letters e, q, x & ee.

Not vet located for evaluation:

• Letters a., b., p., z., aa., bb., cc. & dd,

The remaining documents I find to be within the scope of the Commission's mandate and
will make available if this is still what the Commission wants of this document request.
Please advise.
 Page 1 of 1

Yoel Tobin

From: Yoel Tobin

Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 12:30 PM
To: Doug MacEachin; Nicole Grandrimo; Thomas Dowling; Sarah Linden
Subject: article in today's NY Times

There is a lengthy article in today's NY Times on the intelligence analysis conducted by Feith's shop at the
Pentagon. The article bears careful reading to make sure that we understand what they (and others) did re: Iraq-
AQ, as well as what they did on other possible connections between AQ and other terrorist groups and countries.
The article also references specific presentations, documents, etc. by the Feith group as well as by CIA. Do we
have all pertinent (or at least the most important) docs on Iraq-AQ? What about on other connections (e.g.,
Iran/Hizballah-AQ)?

4/28/2004
How Pair's Finding on Terror Led
To Clash on Shaping Intelligence]

Doug Milts/The New York Times

Shortly after Sept. 11, Douglas J. Feith, shown this week, created a two-
man Pentagon unit to track links between terrorists and host countries.

By JAMES RISEN
WASHINGTON, April 27 — Soon reports."
after the Sept. 11 attacks, a two-man They recorded and annotated their
intelligence team set up shop in a evidence on butcher paper hung like
windowless, cipher-locked room at a mural around their small office. By
the Pentagon, searching for evidence the end of the year, as the rubble was
of links between terrorist groups and being cleared from the World Trade
host countries. Center and United States forces were
The men culled classified materi- fighting in Afghanistan, the men had
al, much of it uncorroborated data constructed a startling new picture
from the C.I.A. "We discovered tons of global terrorism.
of raw intelligence," said Michael Old ethnic, religious and political
Maloof, one of the pair. "We were divides between terrorist groups
stunned that we couldn't find any were breaking down, the two men
mention of it in the C.I.A.'s finished warned, posing an ominous new
threat. They saw alliances among a
wide range of Islamic terrorists, and
NEWS SUMMARY A2 theorized about a convergence of
Sunni and Shiite extremist groups
Arts Bl-10 and secular Arab governments.
Business Day Cl-11 Their conclusions, delivered to sen-
Dining In, Dining Out Dl-12 ior Bush administration officials,
Editorial, Op-Ed A22-23 connected Iraq and Al Qaeda, Sad-
International A3-13 dam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
National A14-19 In doing so, the team also helped
New York C15-16 set off a controversy over the shap-
SportsWednesday C17-21 ing of intelligence that continues to-
World Business Wl-8 day.
Education A21 Real Estate C4-5 The Senate Select Committee on
Obituaries C14 Weather A8 Intelligence is investigating whether
the unit — named the Counter Ter-
Classified Advertising A20
rorism Evaluation Group by its cre-
ator, Douglas J. Feith, the under
Updated news: nytimes.com
Tomorrow in The Times: Page C18 Continued on Page A19