//

Page 1 of3

Mike Hurley

From: Warren Bass

Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 4:19 PM
To: Philip Zelikow; Mike Hurley; Dan Marcus
Subject: Libby interview

Philip, you asked me to tool around a little looking for Libby statements on terrorism. If he ever
publicly spoke or wrote about UBL, al Qaeda, the Taliban, or terrorism before 9/11,1 haven't been
able to find it—after some pretty persistent Nexis and Google searches.

Libby did talk publicly pre-g/n about China, Iraq, and other national security issues. He also
spent some embarrassing time explaining his time as Marc Rich's lawyer (remember that one?).

For his part, Vice President Cheney does seem to have caused a mild kerfuffle in summer 2001 by
seeming to endorse Israeli hits on Palestinian terrorist leaders and then backing off a bit. He also
had some thoughtful comments on attacks at home in early May 2001 in The New Yorker, (They're
included below; Dan Leopold has more Cheney speeches.)

One possible tidbit for the Libby interview: the following is the famous statement founding Bill
KristoPs Project for the New American Century. Plenty of mention here of Clinton-era fumbles; no
mention at all of terrorism. Signatories include Libby, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Khalilzad,
and Abrams.

On weightier matters, the "I" stands for "Irv," and he got the nickname when his father noticed
him beetling around in his crib.

Warren

The Project for the New American Century

Statement of Principles

June3,1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton
Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have
not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding
principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement
on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and
advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the
West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the
vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new
century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the
military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs
and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly

4/19/2004
 Page 2 of3

difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits
threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet
present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is
strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully
promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global
responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the
responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in
maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite
challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important
to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before^hey become dire. The history of this
century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four
consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

•we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order
friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if
the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in
the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

The New Yorker, May 7, 2001—same time as the WMD consequence management roll-out
SECTION: LETTER FROM WASHINGTON; Pg. 56
HEADLINE: THE QUIET MAN; Dick Cheney's discreet rise to unprecedented power.
BYLINE: NICHOLAS LEMANN

[Cheney:] "Well, in terms of the United States, the fact is that there are still regions of the world
that are strategically vital to the U.S., where we care very much about whether or not they're

4/19/2004
 Page 3 of3

dominated by a power hostile to our interests. . . . And anything that would threaten their
independence or their relationships with the United States would be a threat to us. Also, you've still
got to worry a bit about North Korea. You've got to worry about the Iraqis, what ultimately
develops in Iran. But beyond that, in terms of a threat to the U.S., and our security, I think we
have to be more concerned than we ever have about so-called homeland defense, the vulnerability
of our system to different kinds of attacks. Some of it homegrown, like Oklahoma City. Some
inspired by terrorists external to the United States-the World Trade towers bombing, in New York.
The threat of terrorist attack against the U.S., eventually, potentially, with weapons of mass
destruction-bugs or gas, biological, or chemical agents, potentially even, someday, nuclear
weapons. The threat of so-called cyberterrorism attacks on our infrastructure, obviously very
sophisticated in terms of being based on our intelligence infrastructure."

What can we do to reduce those threats?

"In terms of the threats to the United States, the terrorism of various kinds, probably intelligence is
your first line of defense," Cheney said. "You need to have very robust intelligence capability if
you're going to uncover threats to the U.S., and hopefully thwart them before they can be
launched."

4/19/2004
 Page 1 of 1

Mike Hurley

From: Dan Leopold

Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 10:10 AM
To: Philip Zelikow; Steve Dunne; Nora Coulter; Mike Hurley; Dana Hyde
Cc: Chris Kojm
Subject: Libby meeting

All:

I have the commission attendees for the Libby meeting as follows:

Commissioner Hamilton
Philip
Steve
Mike
Dana

I will pass clearances for all of these people this morning. The meeting will be held in Room 276 of the OEOB,
which is Scooter's office. His assistant suggested that everyone enter through the Pennsylvania Street entrance,
which is at 17th and Pennsylvania. Again, the meeting will last from 1-3 p.m. Accompanying Scooter Libby will
be:

David Addington, Counsel to the VP

Courtney Elwood, Deputy Counsel to the VP
Neil Patel, Assistant to the VP for Special Projects

4/19/2004