Museado
Recent Folios
Login Register
English (angol) español (spanyol) magyar हिन्दी (hindi)

Survos folio page chat

  • Show
  • Edit
  • Bookmark
  • Ask document
  • OCR
  • Handwriting
  • Share
    • [Iran/Arms Transaction: Dean McGrath Files: Williams & Connolly] Documents Removed By North (5)

    Ask the Scholar

    Page 1 of 1
    I can add historical knowledge about this page.

    Page image

    Page 1

    OCR

    Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Digital Library Collections This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections. Collection: Culvahouse, Arthur B.: Files Folder Title: [Iran/Arms Transaction: Dean McGrath Files: Williams & Connolly] Documents Removed By North (5) Box: CFOA 1132 To see more digitized collections visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected] Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/ WITHDRAWAL SHEET Ronald Reagan Library Collection Name CULVAHOUSE, ARTHUR B.:FILES Withdrawer DLB 9/25/2014 File Folder [IRAN/ARMS TRANSACTION: DEAN MCGRATH'S FOIA FILES]: WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY DOCUMENTS S643 REMOVED BY NORTH (5 OF 5) Box Number CFOA 1132 SYSTEMATIC 179 ID Doc Type Document Description No of Doc Date Restrictions Pages 165802 REPORT RELEASE OF AMERICAN HOSTAGES IN 5 ND B1 BEIRUT 165803 PAPER DUPLICATE OF #108469; TERMS OF 3 4/4/1986 B1 REFERENCE U.S.-IRAN DIALOGUE The above documents were not referred for declassification review at time of processing Freedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C. 552(b)] B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA] B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA] B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA] B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA] B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA] B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA] B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA] B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA] C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift. WITHDRAWAL SHEET Ronald Reagan Library Collection Name Withdrawer CULVAHOUSE, ARTHUR B.:FILES DLB 9/25/2014 File Folder FOIA [IRAN/ARMS TRANSACTION: DEAN MCGRATH'S FILES]: S643 WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY DOCUMENTS REMOVED BY SYSTEMATIC NORTH (5 OF 5) Box Number CFOA 1132 179 ID Document Type No of Doc Date Restric- Document Description pages tions 165802 REPORT 5 ND B1 RELEASE OF AMERICAN HOSTAGES IN BEIRUT The above documents were not referred for declassification review at time of processing Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)] B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA] B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA] B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA] B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA] B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA] B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA] B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA] B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA] C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift. WITHDRAWAL SHEET Ronald Reagan Library Collection Name Withdrawer CULVAHOUSE, ARTHUR B.:FILES DLB 9/25/2014 File Folder FOIA [IRAN/ARMS TRANSACTION: DEAN MCGRATH'S FILES]: S643 WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY DOCUMENTS REMOVED BY SYSTEMATIC NORTH (5 OF 5) Box Number CFOA 1132 179 ID Document Type No of Doc Date Restric- pages tions Document Description 165803 PAPER 3 4/4/1986 B1 DUPLICATE OF #108469; TERMS OF REFERENCE U.S.-IRAN DIALOGUE The above documents were not referred for declassification review at time of processing Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)] B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA] B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA] B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA] B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA] B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA] B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA] B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA] B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA] C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift. North 8346 NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506 November 20, 1986 ACTION MEMORANDUM FOR RODNEY B. McDANIEL FROM: OLIVER L. NORTH ROBERT L. EARL x CRAIG P. COYC SUBJECT: Washington Post Questions Attached at Tab I is a memo from you to David Chew forwarding the responses to the Washington Post questions (Tab A) requested by Tom Gibson (see Tab II). Howard Teicher, Bob Linhard, Dennis Ross, and Peter 7H Rodman 74 7H 3H concur. RECOMMENDATION That you initial and forward the memo along with the Q&As at Tab I. Approve Disapprove Attachments Tab I - - McDaniel Memo to Chew Tab A - - Questions & Answers Tab II - - Gibson Memo to McDaniel dated November 19, 1986 147 8346 NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506 MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW FROM: RODNEY B. McDANIEL SUBJECT: Washington Post Questions Attached at Tab A are NSC answers to the Washington Post questions that were forwarded by Tom Gibson. CC: Tom Gibson Pat Buchanan Attachment Tab A - Questions & Answers 148 November 20, 1986 1800 Q: DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE MODERATE ELEMENTS WITHIN THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT? AND IF THERE ARE, CAN THERE BE ANY DOUBT THAT OUR ASSOCIATION WITH THEM WILL DIMINISH THEIR INFLUENCE IF NOT ELIMINATE THEIR PRESENCE IN THE POLITICAL STRUCTURE OF IRAN? HOW DO YOU EVER AGAIN GO TO OUR ALLIES AND ASK THEM TO BE TOUGH ON TERRORISTS OR HOLD UP SHIPMENT OF ARMS TO OTHERS AFTER THE DISCLOSURE OF THIS KIND OF INVOLVEMENT IN IRAN? A: From the earliest months following the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the U.S. Government has attempted to reestablish official contact with that country. Even before I took office, the Carter Administration determined that it was necessary to expand security, economic, and political relationships. These attempts included secret meetings between high-level government officials. Numerous individuals and private parties have attempted to be helpful as intermediaries in establishing contact in Iran or in seeking Iranian assistance in the release of the hostages held in Lebanon. These efforts have included attempts by members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. 149 2 After many disappointments, about 18 months ago we were approached by a third party. He indicated that a group of influential Iranian officials had determined the need to reorient Iran's policy toward the West and the United States. After extensive work to verify the bona fides of the officials I decided to proceed. We viewed these officials as being pragmatic, guided by their own understanding of Iran's need and the importance of ending Iran's international isolation. The question of credibility with our allies is easy. They know the United States has not tilted toward Iran and away from neutrality in the Iran-Iraq war. They know that the small amount of arms I authorized is insignificant to the outcome of the war and insignificant compared to the volume of arms supplied via Communist bloc countries or even Western Europe. Finally, they know that I have acted in the best interests of world peace, regional stability, and the safety of innocent hostages. Finally, our terrorism policy is clear and unequivocal -- we have not made concessions to terrorists and will not. What we will do is act in our own interests to maintain influence in a vital part of the world. Q: WHAT PROVISION HAVE YOU MADE IN YOUR DEALINGS WITH IRAN TO ENSURE THAT NO MORE HOSTAGES WILL BE TAKEN? 150 3 A: Throughout our contact we have reiterated our steadfast opposition to Iran's support for terrorism and subversion. We repeatedly emphasized the importance of removing the obstacle to improving the dialogue between our two countries, namely the freeing of the hostages held in Lebanon. Iran expressed its opposition to terror and clearly understands the consequences of resorting to terrorism. We clearly stated our policy of neutrality in the Iran-Iraq war and our belief that the war should end honorably with both sides maintaining their territorial integrity. Q: AMONG ALL OF THE ISSUES AND PROBLEMS YOUR ADMINISTRATION FACES IN DEFINING THE NATIONAL INTEREST, IN WHAT ORDER OF PRIORITY WOULD YOU RANK THE FREEDOM OF THE HOSTAGES IN LEBANON? A: From the outset, my objectives in our dealings with Iran were exactly as I have indicated. They were first to replace a relationship of total hostility with one of mutual understanding and respect. Next, we have consistently sought a negotiated end to the Iran-Iraq war which is one of the most important reasons for our arms embargo. Iraq, for some time, has expressed its readiness to pursue a mediated settlement of the war. We have also firmly told the Iranians 151 4 their continued support for terrorism and subversion in the region is unacceptable and must stop. Finally, at every meeting, we said that the continued holding of hostages by groups influenced by Iran constituted an obstacle to any future improved relations. Q: IN TERMS OF INSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY, IT WOULD APPEAR THE NSC (NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL) HAS PREEMPTED THE TRADITIONAL ROLE OF THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT AND CIA IN CENTRAL AMERICA AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT IN IRAN. WHAT CONSTITUTIONAL OR LEGAL AUTHORITY HAS THE NSC TO AID AND ABET THE PROSECUTION OF WAR WITHOUT A DECLARATION THEREOF BY CONGRESS IN CENTRAL AMERICA, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE SHIPMENT OF ARMS IN VIOLATION OF EMBARGO STATUTES TO BELLIGERENTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST? A: As with any sensitive intelligence or diplomatic initiative, participation by departments and agencies, as well as individuals, must be based on their need to know. All of my national security advisors were consulted and they in turn advised those officials within their departments who had a need to know. Involvement of the NSC staff was limited to a few individuals. This initiative was handled just like any other classified covert intelligence operation. The NSC staff, working with the CIA, was simply fulfilling its 152 5 function of advising me on national security issues, as well as carrying out my instructions. Under the law, I told CIA Director Casey to refrain from informing Congress because of the extreme sensitivity and the high risk to individual lives. We also intended and planned to fully inform the relevant committees of Congress when the time was appropriate. To remove any doubt as to our intentions and our actions, I have directed that all information relating to our initiative be provided to the appropriate members of Congress. Of course, some of the information will have to remain classified and not be made public in order to protect individual lives. It is absolutely false that we were "aiding and abetting the prosecution of war without a declaration thereof by Congress." We have not declared war on Nicaragua -- nor do we intend to. What we have been doing is supporting the Nicaraguan democratic resistance forces in their efforts to restore democracy to Nicaragua. That support has always been with: the terms of the relevant laws at the time. Q: SINCE YOU PERMIT (VICE) ADMIRAL (JOHN M.) POINDEXTER TO APPEAR ON "MEET THE PRESS" AND "THE TODAY SHOW" TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, WILL YOU PERMIT HIM TO GO AND ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN A HEARING? 153 6 A: I have pledged that we will offer the fullest possible report to the appropriate members and committees of the Congress. Since this was largely an intelligence operation, I have asked CIA Director Casey to report fully to the intelligence committees, which are the most appropriate forums for discussing the aspects of this policy that remain highly sensitive. My Assistant for National Security Affairs is a member of my Presidential staff and it would be unprecedented and inappropriate for him to be summoned to appear at a formal Congressional hearing. However, Admiral Poindexter has regularly engaged in informal consultations and briefings with members of Congress on a variety of issues since he took over his present position. I have asked him to make himself available for consultations on this issue as well, and he will do so. Q: WHAT EFFECT DID THE UNITED STATES' PROVIDING SOME MILITARY EQUIPMENT HAVE ON THE BEHAVIOR OF THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT? HAS IRAN CHANGED ITS ATTITUDE TOWARD THE WAR WITH IRAQ, TOWARD TERRORISM, OR TOWARD ITS NEIGHBORS, INCLUDING THE SOVIET UNION? 154 7 A: Although it is too soon to give a complete assessment, we have indeed seen a number of positive effects. It is a fact that there has been a marked reduction in Iranian-sponsored terrorism over the last 18 months. Several Iranians responsible for instigating international terrorist acts have been arrested and are now jailed in Iran. Iran has also been helpful in both the TWA hijacking in Beirut in June 1985, as well as the Pan Am Flight 73 hijacking in Karachi last September. The comments of Iran's ambassador to the United Nations acknowledge the improvement in U.S. Iranian relations. Another positive result of our initiative is the release of three of the Americans held hostage in Lebanon. It is true that three more Americans were taken recently, but our information has been ambiguous whether this was Iranian- sponsored. Q: YOU SAID THIS TRADE WAS TO HELP START A DIALOGUE WITH MODERATE POLITICAL FACTIONS IN IRAN. HOW DOES GIVING WEAPONS TO THE (AYATOLLAH RUHOLLAH) KHOMEINI ESTABLISHMENT HELP THIS? A: That is a question that I asked myself. I can only say that I grappled with this decision for a long time. The Iranians themselves asked to purchase this equipment. After careful 155 8 consideration, our assessment was that the dialogue would only move forward if our Iranian interlocutors became convinced that our negotiators genuinely represented me. The Iranians believed that the authorization to purchase some military materiel was the only gesture that would demonstrate my involvement and commitment to this initiative. We were very explicit in our sale of this equipment to make sure that, first, it could not be used for offensive purposes and, second, that it could in no way affect the outcome of the war with Iraq. In doing this, we were well aware of the risk and we understood this was a limited deviation from our arms embargo policy. Nevertheless, we proceeded because we saw a potential opening that could, if probed and cultivated successfully, have had long-term stabilizing effects on the regime and could have contributed to ending the war -- the very objective of the arms embargo. Q: IF THE KHOMEINI AND (LIBYAN LEADER MOAMMAR) QADHAFI ROLES WERE REVERSED so THAT QADHAFI WAS IN CHARGE OF THE MORE STRATEGICALLY IMPORTANT COUNTRY OF IRAN, WOULD WE BOMB KHOMEINI AND ARM QADHAFI? A: Questions like this are pure speculation and avoid the heart of the issue. There is no debate over the strategic 156 9 importance of Iran. In this regard, it is notable that only a few major countries do not have relations with Iran -- Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Israel, South Africa, and the United States. Even Iraq continues to have diplomatic relations with Iran. The Iranians came to us threatened with growing Soviet military power and political influence along its borders and inside its territory. They also face increasing desperation brought on by the costs of the Iran-Iraq war and a deteriorating economic situation. It is neither in our interest nor the interest of any of our regional freinds for Iran to unravel and descend into chaos. The more pragmatic Iranian leadership, the more Iran is likely to remain intact, to sustain its position as a strategic buffer to the Soviet Union, to end its practice of exporting revolution and threatening its neighbors. When making my decisions in the Oval Office, I must deal with the world as it is and make judgments on what best serves the interest of our country, our people, and world peace. I cannot speculate nor can I compare two totally different sets of theoretical circumstances. In the case of our military actions against Libya on April 15, we had extraordinarily clear and unambiguous evidence of Libyan government involvement in a recent act of international terrorism against Americans in West Berlin. For the past 18 months, we have not had any such similar evidence of Iranian government involvement in terrorism against Americans. 157 10 Q: OUT HERE, WE DON'T EXPECT THE PRESIDENT TO DO ONE THING AND SAY QUITE ANOTHER. HOW DO YOU EXPECT TO LIE AND HAVE US TRUST YOU AGAIN? A: Because I haven't lied, I do expect that the vast majority of Americans will continue to believe and trust in what we say. We have only now begun to present the information concerning this sensitive initiative toward Iran. Although many Americans may still not agree with some of the actions taken, we expect that they will at least understand the strategic dimension of those actions as we have explained it. The choice may not have been easy, particularly given the risks; but there are times when a President must be prepared to run risks in the service of goals of great importance. Q: WAS ANYTHING DONE (BY IRAN) AGAINST ITS OWN SELF-INTEREST IN RETURN FOR WHAT WE DID? ARE THERE ARRANGEMENTS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES TO GIVE SUBSTANTIALLY MORE ARMS (TO IRAN) THAN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TOLD ABOUT? A: The officials in Iran who sought to reorient Iran's policy toward the West and the United States clearly had Iran's -- not America's -- interests in mind. They saw both the external threat to Iran from the Soviet Union and the 158 11 internal threat brought on by the exasperation with the war and a deteriorating economy. They are aware of the dangers of not dealing with Iran's growing internal problems and divisions. They recognized the need to reduce Iran's international isolation and improve relations with the West in order to respond to those threats. At no time did they act against Iran's self-interest nor would we expect them to do so. The fact of the matter is that there is a gradual congruence of interests between our two countries. As I have said, our arms embargo remains intact and we have not and will not acquiesce in the sale of arms to Iran. The shipments I authorized were limited to defensive arms and the total of all these shipments could fit in a single cargo airplane. a: WHY NOT TREAT IRAN AS WE TREAT NICARAGUA, AS AN ENEMY? A: We continue to have diplomatic relations with Nicaragua. We do so because it is my belief that we can help bring about a democratic solution to the unrest in that country by remaining there. It is important to remember that only a few major countries do not have relations with Iran. Even Iraq maintains relations with Iran. 159 12 Q: MR PRESIDENT, WHY DON'T YOU MAKE A FULLER ACCOUNTING OF WHAT YOU EXPECTED TO GET IN THIS TRANSACTION (WITH IRAN) ? WHAT OTHER SHIPMENTS HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED BY US? THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THE PENTAGON WHO CONTEND THAT SOME OF THE STUFF WAS VERY SOPHISTICATED, "BLACK BOX" EQUIPMENT. ARE WE GOING TO SHIP MORE OR DO WE INTEND TO ENCOURAGE OR ACQUIESCE IN THE SHIPMENT OF ARMS TO IRAN BY OTHER COUNTRIES? A: We cannot and will not publicly go into the specific details of this arrangement. As I have said, all information pertaining to this operation will be provided to the appropriate members of Congress. I will reiterate that the sum total of all the equipment I authorized could fit in one cargo airplane and that there will be no further transfers of military equipment. Q: IN LIGHT OF THE FIASCO OF IRAN, THE SWAP OF A SOVIET SPY FOR AN AMERICAN JOURNALIST, THE FAILURE OF REYKJAVIK TO MOVE TOWARDS EFFECTIVE ARMS CONTROL, THE SKIRTING OF U.S. LAWS BY SENDING AN AMERICAN ARMS-SUPPLY PLANE TO NICARAGUA, AND THE CLUMSY DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN AGAINST LIBYA, WHAT CHANGES DO YOU PLAN TO RESTORE COMPETENCE AND CREDIBILITY TO THE CONDUCT OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY? 160 13 A: I do not plan any changes because of false perceptions created by misinformation. First, the Soviets cannot honestly conclude that they came out even in the aftermath of their espionage activities at the UN. Second, we and the Soviets agree that important progress was made at Reykjavik and that our arms control negotiations should resume where Reykjavik left off. Third, the downed aircraft that was attempting to bring supplies to the democratic resistance in Nicaragua was not a U.S. Government aircraft or involved in any U.S. Government operation. Finally, our policy toward Libya since April has been a policy of mobilizing a variety of pressures in order to deter Qadhafi's continuing use of terrorism; there was no policy of misleading or feeding false information to the American press. The one article in the Wall Street Journal that is charged with having been used for purposes of a disinformation campaign turns out to be about 90% accurate in its reporting of facts. The remaining 10% did not come from any U.S. Government officials or sources. Our six-year record in foreign policy is a successful record. We have restored the strategic position of the United States in the world and have before us some opportunities for important new achievements. I plan no changes in the strong team of advisors who have served the Nation tirelessly and well. 161 14 Q: IS THERE AN ACCEPTABLE MIDDLE POINT BETWEEN YOUR POSITION ON SDI (STRATEGIC DEFENSE INITIATIVE) TESTING AND THAT OF SOVIET LEADER MIKHAIL GORBACHEV? ARE THERE RESTRICTIONS ON THE NUMBER, TYPE, OR CONDUCT OF SDI TESTS THAT WOULD ALLOW RESEARCH TO CONTINUE AT AN ACCEPTABLE PACE AND ALSO ASSURE THE SOVIETS THAT THE U.S. PLANS NO BREAKOUT FROM THE ABM (ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE) ? A: We already have a signed agreement with the Soviets governing, among other things, strategic defense testing -- the ABM Treaty. In the context of our proposal to eliminate all U.S. and Soviet offensive ballistic missiles, we are prepared not to deploy advanced strategic defenses for a 10-year period and to confine ourselves to a program of research, development, and testing, which are permitted by the ABM Treaty. What we are not prepared to do is to accept Soviet attempts to kill the U.S. SDI program by directly or indirectly amending the ABM Treaty by restrictively redefining its terms. SDI offers us the hope of a safer more stable world. Moreover, the Soviets, who have the world's only operational ABM system, also have a long-standing, active, and extensive program of strategic defense research, development, and testing. When the Soviets are prepared to drop their 162 15 propaganda attacks on SDI, this may give us the basis for an agreement on a transition to deterrence increasingly based on defenses. Q: YOU HAVE CALLED FOR A WORLDWIDE DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION. WHY HAVEN'T YOU PUSHED FOR SUCH A REVOLUTION WHERE YOU HAVE YOUR STRONGEST INFLUENCE, IN SUCH AREAS AS SOUTH KOREA AND SOUTH AFRICA? A: The democratic revolution around the world is not something I have "called for;" it is an historical fact, vindicating the fundamental principles that all Americans have always held dear. In Central America, South America, Haiti, the Philippines, and elsewhere, we see inspiring examples of democratic advance. The United States has limited influence to shape events in other countries; but we use the influence we have, and we use it to further our goals of democracy, freedom, and human rights. In the Republic of Korea, we see an allied government, facing a grave security threat from the North, committed to an unprecedented peaceful transition to a civilian democratic government by 1988. In South Africa, the United States has exerted great efforts to promote black economic advances and a political negotiation which leads to a rapid and peaceful end to the repugnant apartheid system and its replacement by a system of constitu- tional democracy, racial justice, and human rights. 163 8346 THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON November 19, 1986 MEMORANDUM FOR ROD McDANIEL FROM: TOM GIBSON SUBJECT: Washington Post Questions The President has indicated his interest in replying to the 26 questions solicited by the Washington Post in their Federal Report of today's paper. The bulk of them concern Iran. I would like to coordinate the production of a draft response, either in the form of letter or Op Ed. Brief one to two paragraph answers should be all that is necessary for each question, but respond with the length you deem necessary. I have noted the questions for your attention. Can we try to have drafts back to me by COB Thursday. We'll do an edit and then Chew will staff. Thanks very much. CC: Pat Buchanan David Chew 164 SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESIDENT Q: In terms of institutional accountabil- ity, it would appear the NSC [National Security Council] has preempted the tra- ditional role of the Defense Department and CIA in Central America and the State NSL Nath Department in Iran. What constitutional or legal authority has the NSC to aid and abet the prosecution of war without a dec- laration thereof by Congress in Central America. and to authorize the shipment of arms in violation of embargo statutes to belligerents in the Middle East? -Rep. Jim Leach (R-lowa), Foreign Affairs Committee member Q: Since you permit [Vice] Adm. [John M.] Poindexter to appear on "Meet the Press" and "The Today Show" to answer NSC 1 questions, will you permit him to go and answer questions from members of Con- gress in a hearing? -Kirk O'Donnell. former counsel to House Speaker Thomas P. (Tip) BY O'Neill Jr. (D-Mass.) and president of the Center for National Policy T oday at 8 p.m., President Reagan will give his first news a: What effect did the United States' conference in three months-his providing some military equipment have on the behavior of the Iranian govern- seventh this year. The Federal Page NSC North ment? Has Iran changed its attitude to- asked dozens of Americans in public ward the war with Iraq, toward terrorism life to suggest questions that they or toward its neighbors, including the So- would like to see the president viet Union? answer; these are some of the -John C. West. former Democratic questions we received. governor of South Carolina and ambassador to Saudi Arabia Do you really believe that there are moderate elements within the Iranian gov- You said this trade was to help start a ernment? And if there are. can there be diaiogue with moderate political factions Naith any doubt that our association with them in Iran. How does giving weapons to the NSC will diminish their influence if not elimi- [Ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini establish- New nate their presence in the political struc- ment help this? ture of Iran? -Michael (Mickey) Kantor. Los How do you ever again go to our allies Angeles lawyer (partner of former and ask them to be tough on terrorists or Democratic National Committee hold up shipment of arms to others after chairman Charles Manatt and former the disclosure of this kind of involvement senator John Tunney) and Democratic North in Iran? activist -Walter F. Mondale. former vice president and Democratic presidential Q: If the Khomeini and [Libyan leader nominee in 1984 Moammar] Gadhafi roles were reversed so that Gadhari was in charge of the more stra- is... Q: What provision have you made in your tegically important country of Iran. would North NSC dealings with Iran to ensure that no more we bomb Khomeini and arm Gadhafi? hostages will be taken? point -John Steinbruner. director of the -Senate Appropriations Committee foreign policy studies program at the Chairman Mark 0. Hatfield (R-Ore.) - Brookings Institution Q: Out here. we don't expect the pres- ä Among all of the issues and problems ident to do one thing and say quite anoth- your administration faces in defining the er. How do you expect to lie and have us Nath NSC national interest. in what order of priority trust you again? would you rank the freedom of the hos- -Deborah Howell. executive editor of tages in Lebanon? the St. Paul Pioneer Press and -Norman Ornstein. political scientist Dispatch 165 Was anything done [by Iran] against Do you think you have changed the its own self-interest in return for what we thinking of the American people and have opened up a lasting trend toward reducing did? Are there arrangements with other NSL the presence of government in our daily Naith countries to give substantially more arms lives? [to Iran] than the American people have -George Reedy, press secretary to been told about? President Lyndon B. Johnson, now -Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), vice journalism professor at Marquette chairman of the Senate Select University Committee on Intelligence What are your plans for reducing the Q Why not treat Iran as we treat Nic- trade and budget deficits? And when are aragua. as an enemy? you going to stop kidding the American North public and start talking about raising -Dinesh D'Souza. managing editor of taxes? Policy Review, the Heritage -Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Foundation journal Appropriations Committee member Mr. President. why don't you make a Given your reluctance to increase fuller accounting of what you expected to taxes and your reluctance and Congress' wath get in this transaction [with Iran]? What reluctance to breathe the words "Social other shipments have been authorized by Security," how in the world do you think us? There are people in the Pentagon who you will ever cut the deficit much below Not NSC specifics discuss contend that some of the stuff was very $200 billion a year? And is that [large det- sophisticated. "black box" equipment. Are icit] the legacy you want to leave? we going to ship more or do we intend to -Carol Cox. president of the encourage or acquiesce in the shipment of Committee for a Responsible Budget arms to Iran by other countries? -Jody Powell. press secretary to You insist that budget deficits are the President Jimmy Carter fauit of Congress. yet in the last six years Congress has appropriated less than you have requested and you have vetoed only Looking back over the past six years. two appropriations bills. How do you ex- what are the foreign policy achievements plain these inconsistencies? of your administration to date? -Rep. Marvin Leath (D-Tex.), -Stansfield Turner. Central member of the Budget Committee and Intelligence Agency director, 1977-81 challenger to Rep. Les Aspin (D-Wis.) for chairmanship of the Armed Q: Have you looked at the election re- Services Committee suits in the Upper Midwest-North Da- kota. South Dakota, Minnesota-and con- Mr. President. under the Reagan ad- cluded that you need to change your ad- ministration, the federal-city partnership ministration's policy toward rural Amer- has deteriorated from its historically sup- ica? portive role to an adversarial relationship. -Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.), a leader When you were last in Chicago. you of the Conservative Opportunity ducked a question about federal funding Society and narrow reelection winner for Chicago, by citing the release of fed- eral transit funds. which had been com- in an economically depressed farm mitted long ago and had nothing to do with district the real issue facing the cities. On another occasion, you suggested that urban Amer- How in God's name can you go to icans should "vote with their feet." sleep at night as a conservative with a My question is: What do you advise ur- $200 billion |annual federal budget] deficit ban Americans, caught between the rock looking at you every year-as the biggest and the hard place. between the conse- deficit spender in American history? quence of your added trillion-dollar deficit -George McGovern. former senator and the new tax policies on one hand, and (D-S.D.) and Democratic nominee for the loss of social programs formerly president in 1972 funded by the federal government on the other? That is, are you still suggesting # Mr. President, you came into office that we just mosey along somewhere else, on a conservative platform and offered a or do you have a policy for the cities? number of measures to cut down govern- -Harold Washington. Democratic mental activity. mayor of Chicago 166 In light of the fiasco of Iran, the swap of a Soviet spy for an American journalist, the failure of Reykjavik to move towards effective arms control, the skirting of U.S. laws by sending an American arms-supply Rodman plane to Nicaragua and the clumsy disin- formation campaign against Libya, what changes do you plan to restore compe- tence and credibility to the conduct of U.S. foreign policy? -John Brademas, president of New York University and former congressman (D-Ind.) The GOP lost the Senate. Republican candidates lost 13 of 16 races you cam- paigned in. the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff apparently disagrees with the po- sition you took in Iceland. and only 14 per- cent of the American public believes that your statement about not trading arms for hostages is essentially true. Haven't you lost a little zip off of your fast ball? -Harrison Hickman. Democratic pollster Is there an acceptable middle point between your position on SDI [Strategic Defense Initiative] testing and that of So- viet leader Mikhail Gorbachev? Are there restrictions on the number, type or con- duct of SDI tests that would allow re- search to continue at an acceptable pace and also assure the Soviets that the U.S. plans no breakout from the ABM [Anti- ballistic Missile] Treaty? -William E. Colby, CIA director. 1973-76 You have called for a policy of SD: DONE strength. saying this was the only way to get the Russians to behave. Can you point NSC to one example where your military build- up and your rhetoric have succeeded in making the Russians behave better? -Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) You have called for a worldwide dem- ocratic revolution. Why haven't you pushed for such a revolution where you Rodman have your strongest influence. in such ar- eas as South Korea and South Africa? NS< -Andrew Young, Democratic mayor of Atlanta and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Do you intend to support Vice Pres- ident Bush or someone eise for the GOP nomination in 1988? THE WASHINGTON POST -Richard Nathan. professor at Princeton. former assistant budget director and deputy undersecretary of WEDNESDAY. NOVEMBER 19. 1986 health. education and weifare in the Nixon administration 167 A NAME PASSPORT NUMBER AND COUNTRY HAVE BEEN BLOCKED OUT ON THIS DOCUMENT WHICH CONTAINS THE TRUE NAME IDENTITY OF A FOREIGN NATIONAL DOMACHER OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES. I BELIEVE THAT DISCLOSURE of THIS INFORMATION, KNOWN ONLY TO we WORLD RESULT IN THE DEATH of THIS Reeson. Travel Document DOB: 1941 New ETA 1830 168

    Page data

    Page
    1
    Source index
    0
    Type
    document
    Media ID
    111adb304b28cdc8
    Size
    unknown

    Document data

    ID
    118565758
    Core
    doc
    Type
    document
    DTO data 
    {
    "id": "118565758",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118565758",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "[Iran/Arms Transaction: Dean McGrath Files: Williams & Connolly] Documents Removed By North (5)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118565758",
    "identifierLocal": "123",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)",
        "Arthur Culvahouse's Office Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/12011812/40-123-12011812-CFOA1132-021-2018.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/12011812/40-123-12011812-CFOA1132-021-2018.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/12011812/40-123-12011812-CFOA1132-021-2018.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

    Context sent to Scholar

    Document identity 
    {
    "localId": "118565758",
    "label": "[Iran/Arms Transaction: Dean McGrath Files: Williams & Connolly] Documents Removed By North (5)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118565758"
}
    Document source metadata 
    {
    "id": "118565758",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118565758",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "[Iran/Arms Transaction: Dean McGrath Files: Williams & Connolly] Documents Removed By North (5)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118565758",
    "identifierLocal": "123",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)",
        "Arthur Culvahouse's Office Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/12011812/40-123-12011812-CFOA1132-021-2018.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/12011812/40-123-12011812-CFOA1132-021-2018.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/12011812/40-123-12011812-CFOA1132-021-2018.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}
    Document source extras 
    {
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118565758",
    "naId": 118565758,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1988-12-31",
        "year": 1988
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1987-01-01",
        "year": 1987
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
    Page context 
    {
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/12011812/40-123-12011812-CFOA1132-021-2018.pdf",
    "mediaId": "111adb304b28cdc8",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Culvahouse, Arthur B.: Files\nFolder Title: [Iran/Arms Transaction: Dean McGrath Files:\nWilliams & Connolly] Documents Removed By North (5)\nBox: CFOA 1132\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nWITHDRAWAL SHEET\nRonald Reagan Library\nCollection Name CULVAHOUSE, ARTHUR B.:FILES\nWithdrawer\nDLB\n9/25/2014\nFile Folder\n[IRAN/ARMS TRANSACTION: DEAN MCGRATH'S\nFOIA\nFILES]: WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY DOCUMENTS\nS643\nREMOVED BY NORTH (5 OF 5)\nBox Number\nCFOA 1132\nSYSTEMATIC\n179\nID\nDoc Type\nDocument Description\nNo of Doc Date Restrictions\nPages\n165802\nREPORT\nRELEASE OF AMERICAN HOSTAGES IN\n5\nND\nB1\nBEIRUT\n165803\nPAPER\nDUPLICATE OF #108469; TERMS OF\n3\n4/4/1986\nB1\nREFERENCE U.S.-IRAN DIALOGUE\nThe above documents were not referred for declassification review at time of processing\nFreedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]\nB-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]\nB-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]\nB-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]\nB-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]\nB-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]\nB-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]\nB-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]\nB-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.\nWITHDRAWAL SHEET\nRonald Reagan Library\nCollection Name\nWithdrawer\nCULVAHOUSE, ARTHUR B.:FILES\nDLB 9/25/2014\nFile Folder\nFOIA\n[IRAN/ARMS TRANSACTION: DEAN MCGRATH'S FILES]:\nS643\nWILLIAMS & CONNOLLY DOCUMENTS REMOVED BY\nSYSTEMATIC\nNORTH (5 OF 5)\nBox Number\nCFOA 1132\n179\nID\nDocument Type\nNo of Doc Date\nRestric-\nDocument Description\npages\ntions\n165802 REPORT\n5\nND\nB1\nRELEASE OF AMERICAN HOSTAGES IN BEIRUT\nThe above documents were not referred for declassification review at time of processing\nFreedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]\nB-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]\nB-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]\nB-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]\nB-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]\nB-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]\nB-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]\nB-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]\nB-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.\nWITHDRAWAL SHEET\nRonald Reagan Library\nCollection Name\nWithdrawer\nCULVAHOUSE, ARTHUR B.:FILES\nDLB 9/25/2014\nFile Folder\nFOIA\n[IRAN/ARMS TRANSACTION: DEAN MCGRATH'S FILES]:\nS643\nWILLIAMS & CONNOLLY DOCUMENTS REMOVED BY\nSYSTEMATIC\nNORTH (5 OF 5)\nBox Number\nCFOA 1132\n179\nID\nDocument Type\nNo of\nDoc Date\nRestric-\npages\ntions\nDocument Description\n165803 PAPER\n3\n4/4/1986\nB1\nDUPLICATE OF #108469; TERMS OF REFERENCE\nU.S.-IRAN DIALOGUE\nThe above documents were not referred for declassification review at time of processing\nFreedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]\nB-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]\nB-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]\nB-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]\nB-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]\nB-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]\nB-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]\nB-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]\nB-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.\nNorth\n8346\nNATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20506\nNovember 20, 1986\nACTION\nMEMORANDUM FOR RODNEY B. McDANIEL\nFROM:\nOLIVER L. NORTH\nROBERT L. EARL x\nCRAIG P. COYC\nSUBJECT:\nWashington Post Questions\nAttached at Tab I is a memo from you to David Chew forwarding the\nresponses to the Washington Post questions (Tab A) requested by\nTom Gibson (see Tab II).\nHoward Teicher, Bob Linhard, Dennis Ross, and Peter 7H Rodman\n74\n7H\n3H\nconcur.\nRECOMMENDATION\nThat you initial and forward the memo along with the Q&As at\nTab I.\nApprove\nDisapprove\nAttachments\nTab I - - McDaniel Memo to Chew\nTab A - - Questions & Answers\nTab II - - Gibson Memo to McDaniel dated November 19, 1986\n147\n8346\nNATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20506\nMEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW\nFROM:\nRODNEY B. McDANIEL\nSUBJECT:\nWashington Post Questions\nAttached at Tab A are NSC answers to the Washington Post\nquestions that were forwarded by Tom Gibson.\nCC:\nTom Gibson\nPat Buchanan\nAttachment\nTab A - Questions & Answers\n148\nNovember 20, 1986\n1800\nQ:\nDO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE MODERATE ELEMENTS\nWITHIN THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT? AND IF THERE ARE, CAN THERE\nBE ANY DOUBT THAT OUR ASSOCIATION WITH THEM WILL DIMINISH\nTHEIR INFLUENCE IF NOT ELIMINATE THEIR PRESENCE IN THE\nPOLITICAL STRUCTURE OF IRAN?\nHOW DO YOU EVER AGAIN GO TO OUR ALLIES AND ASK THEM TO BE\nTOUGH ON TERRORISTS OR HOLD UP SHIPMENT OF ARMS TO OTHERS\nAFTER THE DISCLOSURE OF THIS KIND OF INVOLVEMENT IN IRAN?\nA:\nFrom the earliest months following the Islamic Revolution in\nIran, the U.S. Government has attempted to reestablish\nofficial contact with that country. Even before I took\noffice, the Carter Administration determined that it was\nnecessary to expand security, economic, and political\nrelationships. These attempts included secret meetings\nbetween high-level government officials.\nNumerous individuals and private parties have attempted to\nbe helpful as intermediaries in establishing contact in Iran\nor in seeking Iranian assistance in the release of the\nhostages held in Lebanon. These efforts have included\nattempts by members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.\n149\n2\nAfter many disappointments, about 18 months ago we were\napproached by a third party. He indicated that a group of\ninfluential Iranian officials had determined the need to\nreorient Iran's policy toward the West and the United\nStates. After extensive work to verify the bona fides of\nthe officials I decided to proceed. We viewed these\nofficials as being pragmatic, guided by their own\nunderstanding of Iran's need and the importance of ending\nIran's international isolation.\nThe question of credibility with our allies is easy. They\nknow the United States has not tilted toward Iran and away\nfrom neutrality in the Iran-Iraq war. They know that the\nsmall amount of arms I authorized is insignificant to the\noutcome of the war and insignificant compared to the volume\nof arms supplied via Communist bloc countries or even\nWestern Europe. Finally, they know that I have acted in the\nbest interests of world peace, regional stability, and the\nsafety of innocent hostages. Finally, our terrorism policy\nis clear and unequivocal -- we have not made concessions to\nterrorists and will not. What we will do is act in our own\ninterests to maintain influence in a vital part of the\nworld.\nQ:\nWHAT PROVISION HAVE YOU MADE IN YOUR DEALINGS WITH IRAN TO\nENSURE THAT NO MORE HOSTAGES WILL BE TAKEN?\n150\n3\nA:\nThroughout our contact we have reiterated our steadfast\nopposition to Iran's support for terrorism and subversion.\nWe repeatedly emphasized the importance of removing the\nobstacle to improving the dialogue between our two\ncountries, namely the freeing of the hostages held in\nLebanon. Iran expressed its opposition to terror and\nclearly understands the consequences of resorting to\nterrorism. We clearly stated our policy of neutrality in\nthe Iran-Iraq war and our belief that the war should end\nhonorably with both sides maintaining their territorial\nintegrity.\nQ:\nAMONG ALL OF THE ISSUES AND PROBLEMS YOUR ADMINISTRATION\nFACES IN DEFINING THE NATIONAL INTEREST, IN WHAT ORDER OF\nPRIORITY WOULD YOU RANK THE FREEDOM OF THE HOSTAGES IN\nLEBANON?\nA:\nFrom the outset, my objectives in our dealings with Iran\nwere exactly as I have indicated. They were first to\nreplace a relationship of total hostility with one of mutual\nunderstanding and respect. Next, we have consistently\nsought a negotiated end to the Iran-Iraq war which is one of\nthe most important reasons for our arms embargo. Iraq, for\nsome time, has expressed its readiness to pursue a mediated\nsettlement of the war. We have also firmly told the Iranians\n151\n4\ntheir continued support for terrorism and subversion in the\nregion is unacceptable and must stop. Finally, at every\nmeeting, we said that the continued holding of hostages by\ngroups influenced by Iran constituted an obstacle to any\nfuture improved relations.\nQ: IN TERMS OF INSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY, IT WOULD APPEAR\nTHE NSC (NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL) HAS PREEMPTED THE\nTRADITIONAL ROLE OF THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT AND CIA IN\nCENTRAL AMERICA AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT IN IRAN. WHAT\nCONSTITUTIONAL OR LEGAL AUTHORITY HAS THE NSC TO AID AND\nABET THE PROSECUTION OF WAR WITHOUT A DECLARATION THEREOF BY\nCONGRESS IN CENTRAL AMERICA, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE SHIPMENT\nOF ARMS IN VIOLATION OF EMBARGO STATUTES TO BELLIGERENTS IN\nTHE MIDDLE EAST?\nA:\nAs with any sensitive intelligence or diplomatic initiative,\nparticipation by departments and agencies, as well as\nindividuals, must be based on their need to know. All of my\nnational security advisors were consulted and they in turn\nadvised those officials within their departments who had a\nneed to know. Involvement of the NSC staff was limited to a\nfew individuals. This initiative was handled just like any\nother classified covert intelligence operation. The NSC\nstaff, working with the CIA, was simply fulfilling its\n152\n5\nfunction of advising me on national security issues, as well\nas carrying out my instructions. Under the law, I told CIA\nDirector Casey to refrain from informing Congress because of\nthe extreme sensitivity and the high risk to individual\nlives. We also intended and planned to fully inform the\nrelevant committees of Congress when the time was appropriate.\nTo remove any doubt as to our intentions and our actions, I\nhave directed that all information relating to our initiative\nbe provided to the appropriate members of Congress. Of\ncourse, some of the information will have to remain classified\nand not be made public in order to protect individual lives.\nIt is absolutely false that we were \"aiding and abetting the\nprosecution of war without a declaration thereof by Congress.\"\nWe have not declared war on Nicaragua -- nor do we intend\nto. What we have been doing is supporting the Nicaraguan\ndemocratic resistance forces in their efforts to restore\ndemocracy to Nicaragua. That support has always been with:\nthe terms of the relevant laws at the time.\nQ:\nSINCE YOU PERMIT (VICE) ADMIRAL (JOHN M.) POINDEXTER TO\nAPPEAR ON \"MEET THE PRESS\" AND \"THE TODAY SHOW\" TO ANSWER\nQUESTIONS, WILL YOU PERMIT HIM TO GO AND ANSWER QUESTIONS\nFROM MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN A HEARING?\n153\n6\nA:\nI have pledged that we will offer the fullest possible\nreport to the appropriate members and committees of the\nCongress. Since this was largely an intelligence operation,\nI have asked CIA Director Casey to report fully to the\nintelligence committees, which are the most appropriate\nforums for discussing the aspects of this policy that remain\nhighly sensitive.\nMy Assistant for National Security Affairs is a member of my\nPresidential staff and it would be unprecedented and\ninappropriate for him to be summoned to appear at a formal\nCongressional hearing. However, Admiral Poindexter has\nregularly engaged in informal consultations and briefings\nwith members of Congress on a variety of issues since he\ntook over his present position. I have asked him to make\nhimself available for consultations on this issue as well,\nand he will do so.\nQ:\nWHAT EFFECT DID THE UNITED STATES' PROVIDING SOME MILITARY\nEQUIPMENT HAVE ON THE BEHAVIOR OF THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT?\nHAS IRAN CHANGED ITS ATTITUDE TOWARD THE WAR WITH IRAQ,\nTOWARD TERRORISM, OR TOWARD ITS NEIGHBORS, INCLUDING THE\nSOVIET UNION?\n154\n7\nA:\nAlthough it is too soon to give a complete assessment, we\nhave indeed seen a number of positive effects. It is a fact\nthat there has been a marked reduction in Iranian-sponsored\nterrorism over the last 18 months. Several Iranians\nresponsible for instigating international terrorist acts\nhave been arrested and are now jailed in Iran. Iran has\nalso been helpful in both the TWA hijacking in Beirut in\nJune 1985, as well as the Pan Am Flight 73 hijacking in\nKarachi last September. The comments of Iran's ambassador\nto the United Nations acknowledge the improvement in\nU.S. Iranian relations.\nAnother positive result of our initiative is the release of\nthree of the Americans held hostage in Lebanon. It is true\nthat three more Americans were taken recently, but our\ninformation has been ambiguous whether this was Iranian-\nsponsored.\nQ:\nYOU SAID THIS TRADE WAS TO HELP START A DIALOGUE WITH\nMODERATE POLITICAL FACTIONS IN IRAN. HOW DOES GIVING\nWEAPONS TO THE (AYATOLLAH RUHOLLAH) KHOMEINI ESTABLISHMENT\nHELP THIS?\nA:\nThat is a question that I asked myself. I can only say that\nI grappled with this decision for a long time. The Iranians\nthemselves asked to purchase this equipment. After careful\n155\n8\nconsideration, our assessment was that the dialogue would\nonly move forward if our Iranian interlocutors became\nconvinced that our negotiators genuinely represented me.\nThe Iranians believed that the authorization to purchase\nsome military materiel was the only gesture that would\ndemonstrate my involvement and commitment to this\ninitiative. We were very explicit in our sale of this\nequipment to make sure that, first, it could not be used for\noffensive purposes and, second, that it could in no way\naffect the outcome of the war with Iraq.\nIn doing this, we were well aware of the risk and we\nunderstood this was a limited deviation from our arms\nembargo policy. Nevertheless, we proceeded because we saw a\npotential opening that could, if probed and cultivated\nsuccessfully, have had long-term stabilizing effects on the\nregime and could have contributed to ending the war -- the\nvery objective of the arms embargo.\nQ:\nIF THE KHOMEINI AND (LIBYAN LEADER MOAMMAR) QADHAFI ROLES\nWERE REVERSED so THAT QADHAFI WAS IN CHARGE OF THE MORE\nSTRATEGICALLY IMPORTANT COUNTRY OF IRAN, WOULD WE BOMB\nKHOMEINI AND ARM QADHAFI?\nA:\nQuestions like this are pure speculation and avoid the heart\nof the issue. There is no debate over the strategic\n156\n9\nimportance of Iran. In this regard, it is notable that only\na few major countries do not have relations with Iran --\nEgypt, Jordan, Morocco, Israel, South Africa, and the United\nStates. Even Iraq continues to have diplomatic relations\nwith Iran. The Iranians came to us threatened with growing\nSoviet military power and political influence along its\nborders and inside its territory. They also face increasing\ndesperation brought on by the costs of the Iran-Iraq war and\na deteriorating economic situation. It is neither in our\ninterest nor the interest of any of our regional freinds for\nIran to unravel and descend into chaos. The more pragmatic\nIranian leadership, the more Iran is likely to remain\nintact, to sustain its position as a strategic buffer to the\nSoviet Union, to end its practice of exporting revolution\nand threatening its neighbors.\nWhen making my decisions in the Oval Office, I must deal\nwith the world as it is and make judgments on what best\nserves the interest of our country, our people, and world\npeace. I cannot speculate nor can I compare two totally\ndifferent sets of theoretical circumstances. In the case of\nour military actions against Libya on April 15, we had\nextraordinarily clear and unambiguous evidence of Libyan\ngovernment involvement in a recent act of international\nterrorism against Americans in West Berlin. For the past 18\nmonths, we have not had any such similar evidence of Iranian\ngovernment involvement in terrorism against Americans.\n157\n10\nQ:\nOUT HERE, WE DON'T EXPECT THE PRESIDENT TO DO ONE THING AND\nSAY QUITE ANOTHER. HOW DO YOU EXPECT TO LIE AND HAVE US\nTRUST YOU AGAIN?\nA:\nBecause I haven't lied, I do expect that the vast majority\nof Americans will continue to believe and trust in what we\nsay. We have only now begun to present the information\nconcerning this sensitive initiative toward Iran. Although\nmany Americans may still not agree with some of the actions\ntaken, we expect that they will at least understand the\nstrategic dimension of those actions as we have explained\nit. The choice may not have been easy, particularly given\nthe risks; but there are times when a President must be\nprepared to run risks in the service of goals of great\nimportance.\nQ:\nWAS ANYTHING DONE (BY IRAN) AGAINST ITS OWN SELF-INTEREST IN\nRETURN FOR WHAT WE DID? ARE THERE ARRANGEMENTS WITH OTHER\nCOUNTRIES TO GIVE SUBSTANTIALLY MORE ARMS (TO IRAN) THAN THE\nAMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TOLD ABOUT?\nA:\nThe officials in Iran who sought to reorient Iran's policy\ntoward the West and the United States clearly had Iran's --\nnot America's -- interests in mind. They saw both the\nexternal threat to Iran from the Soviet Union and the\n158\n11\ninternal threat brought on by the exasperation with the war\nand a deteriorating economy. They are aware of the dangers\nof not dealing with Iran's growing internal problems and\ndivisions. They recognized the need to reduce Iran's\ninternational isolation and improve relations with the West\nin order to respond to those threats. At no time did they\nact against Iran's self-interest nor would we expect them to\ndo so. The fact of the matter is that there is a gradual\ncongruence of interests between our two countries.\nAs I have said, our arms embargo remains intact and we have\nnot and will not acquiesce in the sale of arms to Iran. The\nshipments I authorized were limited to defensive arms and\nthe total of all these shipments could fit in a single cargo\nairplane.\na:\nWHY NOT TREAT IRAN AS WE TREAT NICARAGUA, AS AN ENEMY?\nA:\nWe continue to have diplomatic relations with Nicaragua. We\ndo so because it is my belief that we can help bring about a\ndemocratic solution to the unrest in that country by\nremaining there. It is important to remember that only a\nfew major countries do not have relations with Iran. Even\nIraq maintains relations with Iran.\n159\n12\nQ:\nMR PRESIDENT, WHY DON'T YOU MAKE A FULLER ACCOUNTING OF WHAT\nYOU EXPECTED TO GET IN THIS TRANSACTION (WITH IRAN) ? WHAT\nOTHER SHIPMENTS HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED BY US? THERE ARE\nPEOPLE IN THE PENTAGON WHO CONTEND THAT SOME OF THE STUFF\nWAS VERY SOPHISTICATED, \"BLACK BOX\" EQUIPMENT. ARE WE GOING\nTO SHIP MORE OR DO WE INTEND TO ENCOURAGE OR ACQUIESCE IN\nTHE SHIPMENT OF ARMS TO IRAN BY OTHER COUNTRIES?\nA:\nWe cannot and will not publicly go into the specific details\nof this arrangement. As I have said, all information\npertaining to this operation will be provided to the\nappropriate members of Congress. I will reiterate that the\nsum total of all the equipment I authorized could fit in one\ncargo airplane and that there will be no further transfers\nof military equipment.\nQ:\nIN LIGHT OF THE FIASCO OF IRAN, THE SWAP OF A SOVIET SPY FOR\nAN AMERICAN JOURNALIST, THE FAILURE OF REYKJAVIK TO MOVE\nTOWARDS EFFECTIVE ARMS CONTROL, THE SKIRTING OF U.S. LAWS BY\nSENDING AN AMERICAN ARMS-SUPPLY PLANE TO NICARAGUA, AND THE\nCLUMSY DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN AGAINST LIBYA, WHAT CHANGES\nDO YOU PLAN TO RESTORE COMPETENCE AND CREDIBILITY TO THE\nCONDUCT OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY?\n160\n13\nA:\nI do not plan any changes because of false perceptions\ncreated by misinformation. First, the Soviets cannot\nhonestly conclude that they came out even in the aftermath\nof their espionage activities at the UN. Second, we and the\nSoviets agree that important progress was made at Reykjavik\nand that our arms control negotiations should resume where\nReykjavik left off. Third, the downed aircraft that was\nattempting to bring supplies to the democratic resistance in\nNicaragua was not a U.S. Government aircraft or involved in\nany U.S. Government operation. Finally, our policy toward\nLibya since April has been a policy of mobilizing a variety\nof pressures in order to deter Qadhafi's continuing use of\nterrorism; there was no policy of misleading or feeding\nfalse information to the American press. The one article in\nthe Wall Street Journal that is charged with having been\nused for purposes of a disinformation campaign turns out to\nbe about 90% accurate in its reporting of facts. The\nremaining 10% did not come from any U.S. Government\nofficials or sources.\nOur six-year record in foreign policy is a successful\nrecord. We have restored the strategic position of the\nUnited States in the world and have before us some\nopportunities for important new achievements. I plan no\nchanges in the strong team of advisors who have served the\nNation tirelessly and well.\n161\n14\nQ:\nIS THERE AN ACCEPTABLE MIDDLE POINT BETWEEN YOUR POSITION ON\nSDI (STRATEGIC DEFENSE INITIATIVE) TESTING AND THAT OF\nSOVIET LEADER MIKHAIL GORBACHEV? ARE THERE RESTRICTIONS ON\nTHE NUMBER, TYPE, OR CONDUCT OF SDI TESTS THAT WOULD ALLOW\nRESEARCH TO CONTINUE AT AN ACCEPTABLE PACE AND ALSO ASSURE\nTHE SOVIETS THAT THE U.S. PLANS NO BREAKOUT FROM THE ABM\n(ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE) ?\nA:\nWe already have a signed agreement with the Soviets governing,\namong other things, strategic defense testing -- the ABM\nTreaty. In the context of our proposal to eliminate all\nU.S. and Soviet offensive ballistic missiles, we are prepared\nnot to deploy advanced strategic defenses for a 10-year\nperiod and to confine ourselves to a program of research,\ndevelopment, and testing, which are permitted by the ABM\nTreaty. What we are not prepared to do is to accept Soviet\nattempts to kill the U.S. SDI program by directly or\nindirectly amending the ABM Treaty by restrictively\nredefining its terms.\nSDI offers us the hope of a safer more stable world.\nMoreover, the Soviets, who have the world's only operational\nABM system, also have a long-standing, active, and extensive\nprogram of strategic defense research, development, and\ntesting. When the Soviets are prepared to drop their\n162\n15\npropaganda attacks on SDI, this may give us the basis for an\nagreement on a transition to deterrence increasingly based\non defenses.\nQ:\nYOU HAVE CALLED FOR A WORLDWIDE DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION. WHY\nHAVEN'T YOU PUSHED FOR SUCH A REVOLUTION WHERE YOU HAVE YOUR\nSTRONGEST INFLUENCE, IN SUCH AREAS AS SOUTH KOREA AND SOUTH\nAFRICA?\nA:\nThe democratic revolution around the world is not something\nI have \"called for;\" it is an historical fact, vindicating\nthe fundamental principles that all Americans have always\nheld dear. In Central America, South America, Haiti, the\nPhilippines, and elsewhere, we see inspiring examples of\ndemocratic advance. The United States has limited influence\nto shape events in other countries; but we use the influence\nwe have, and we use it to further our goals of democracy,\nfreedom, and human rights. In the Republic of Korea, we see\nan allied government, facing a grave security threat from\nthe North, committed to an unprecedented peaceful transition\nto a civilian democratic government by 1988. In South\nAfrica, the United States has exerted great efforts to\npromote black economic advances and a political negotiation\nwhich leads to a rapid and peaceful end to the repugnant\napartheid system and its replacement by a system of constitu-\ntional democracy, racial justice, and human rights.\n163\n8346\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nNovember 19, 1986\nMEMORANDUM FOR ROD McDANIEL\nFROM:\nTOM GIBSON\nSUBJECT:\nWashington Post Questions\nThe President has indicated his interest in replying to the 26\nquestions solicited by the Washington Post in their Federal\nReport of today's paper. The bulk of them concern Iran.\nI would like to coordinate the production of a draft response,\neither in the form of letter or Op Ed. Brief one to two\nparagraph answers should be all that is necessary for each\nquestion, but respond with the length you deem necessary. I have\nnoted the questions for your attention. Can we try to have\ndrafts back to me by COB Thursday. We'll do an edit and then\nChew will staff.\nThanks very much.\nCC: Pat Buchanan\nDavid Chew\n164\nSOME QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESIDENT\nQ: In terms of institutional accountabil-\nity, it would appear the NSC [National\nSecurity Council] has preempted the tra-\nditional role of the Defense Department\nand CIA in Central America and the State\nNSL\nNath\nDepartment in Iran. What constitutional\nor legal authority has the NSC to aid and\nabet the prosecution of war without a dec-\nlaration thereof by Congress in Central\nAmerica. and to authorize the shipment of\narms in violation of embargo statutes to\nbelligerents in the Middle East?\n-Rep. Jim Leach (R-lowa), Foreign\nAffairs Committee member\nQ:\nSince you permit [Vice] Adm. [John\nM.] Poindexter to appear on \"Meet the\nPress\" and \"The Today Show\" to answer\nNSC\n1\nquestions, will you permit him to go and\nanswer questions from members of Con-\ngress in a hearing?\n-Kirk O'Donnell. former counsel to\nHouse Speaker Thomas P. (Tip)\nBY\nO'Neill Jr. (D-Mass.) and president of\nthe Center for National Policy\nT\noday at 8 p.m., President Reagan\nwill give his first news\na:\nWhat effect did the United States'\nconference in three months-his\nproviding some military equipment have\non the behavior of the Iranian govern-\nseventh this year. The Federal Page\nNSC\nNorth\nment? Has Iran changed its attitude to-\nasked dozens of Americans in public\nward the war with Iraq, toward terrorism\nlife to suggest questions that they\nor toward its neighbors, including the So-\nwould like to see the president\nviet Union?\nanswer; these are some of the\n-John C. West. former Democratic\nquestions we received.\ngovernor of South Carolina and\nambassador to Saudi Arabia\nDo you really believe that there are\nmoderate elements within the Iranian gov-\nYou said this trade was to help start a\nernment? And if there are. can there be\ndiaiogue with moderate political factions\nNaith\nany doubt that our association with them\nin Iran. How does giving weapons to the\nNSC\nwill diminish their influence if not elimi-\n[Ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini establish-\nNew\nnate their presence in the political struc-\nment help this?\nture of Iran?\n-Michael (Mickey) Kantor. Los\nHow do you ever again go to our allies\nAngeles lawyer (partner of former\nand ask them to be tough on terrorists or\nDemocratic National Committee\nhold up shipment of arms to others after\nchairman Charles Manatt and former\nthe disclosure of this kind of involvement\nsenator John Tunney) and Democratic\nNorth\nin Iran?\nactivist\n-Walter F. Mondale. former vice\npresident and Democratic presidential\nQ:\nIf the Khomeini and [Libyan leader\nnominee in 1984\nMoammar] Gadhafi roles were reversed so\nthat Gadhari was in charge of the more stra-\nis...\nQ:\nWhat provision have you made in your\ntegically important country of Iran. would\nNorth\nNSC\ndealings with Iran to ensure that no more\nwe bomb Khomeini and arm Gadhafi?\nhostages will be taken?\npoint\n-John Steinbruner. director of the\n-Senate Appropriations Committee\nforeign policy studies program at the\nChairman Mark 0. Hatfield (R-Ore.) -\nBrookings Institution\nQ:\nOut here. we don't expect the pres-\nä\nAmong all of the issues and problems\nident to do one thing and say quite anoth-\nyour administration faces in defining the\ner. How do you expect to lie and have us\nNath\nNSC\nnational interest. in what order of priority\ntrust you again?\nwould you rank the freedom of the hos-\n-Deborah Howell. executive editor of\ntages in Lebanon?\nthe St. Paul Pioneer Press and\n-Norman Ornstein. political scientist\nDispatch\n165\nWas anything done [by Iran] against\nDo you think you have changed the\nits own self-interest in return for what we\nthinking of the American people and have\nopened up a lasting trend toward reducing\ndid? Are there arrangements with other\nNSL\nthe presence of government in our daily\nNaith\ncountries to give substantially more arms\nlives?\n[to Iran] than the American people have\n-George Reedy, press secretary to\nbeen told about?\nPresident Lyndon B. Johnson, now\n-Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), vice\njournalism professor at Marquette\nchairman of the Senate Select\nUniversity\nCommittee on Intelligence\nWhat are your plans for reducing the\nQ\nWhy not treat Iran as we treat Nic-\ntrade and budget deficits? And when are\naragua. as an enemy?\nyou going to stop kidding the American\nNorth\npublic and start talking about raising\n-Dinesh D'Souza. managing editor of\ntaxes?\nPolicy Review, the Heritage\n-Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.),\nFoundation journal\nAppropriations Committee member\nMr. President. why don't you make a\nGiven your reluctance to increase\nfuller accounting of what you expected to\ntaxes and your reluctance and Congress'\nwath\nget in this transaction [with Iran]? What\nreluctance to breathe the words \"Social\nother shipments have been authorized by\nSecurity,\" how in the world do you think\nus? There are people in the Pentagon who\nyou will ever cut the deficit much below\nNot NSC specifics discuss\ncontend that some of the stuff was very\n$200 billion a year? And is that [large det-\nsophisticated. \"black box\" equipment. Are\nicit] the legacy you want to leave?\nwe going to ship more or do we intend to\n-Carol Cox. president of the\nencourage or acquiesce in the shipment of\nCommittee for a Responsible Budget\narms to Iran by other countries?\n-Jody Powell. press secretary to\nYou insist that budget deficits are the\nPresident Jimmy Carter\nfauit of Congress. yet in the last six years\nCongress has appropriated less than you\nhave requested and you have vetoed only\nLooking back over the past six years.\ntwo appropriations bills. How do you ex-\nwhat are the foreign policy achievements\nplain these inconsistencies?\nof your administration to date?\n-Rep. Marvin Leath (D-Tex.),\n-Stansfield Turner. Central\nmember of the Budget Committee and\nIntelligence Agency director, 1977-81\nchallenger to Rep. Les Aspin (D-Wis.)\nfor chairmanship of the Armed\nQ:\nHave you looked at the election re-\nServices Committee\nsuits in the Upper Midwest-North Da-\nkota. South Dakota, Minnesota-and con-\nMr. President. under the Reagan ad-\ncluded that you need to change your ad-\nministration, the federal-city partnership\nministration's policy toward rural Amer-\nhas deteriorated from its historically sup-\nica?\nportive role to an adversarial relationship.\n-Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.), a leader\nWhen you were last in Chicago. you\nof the Conservative Opportunity\nducked a question about federal funding\nSociety and narrow reelection winner\nfor Chicago, by citing the release of fed-\neral transit funds. which had been com-\nin an economically depressed farm\nmitted long ago and had nothing to do with\ndistrict\nthe real issue facing the cities. On another\noccasion, you suggested that urban Amer-\nHow in God's name can you go to\nicans should \"vote with their feet.\"\nsleep at night as a conservative with a\nMy question is: What do you advise ur-\n$200 billion |annual federal budget] deficit\nban Americans, caught between the rock\nlooking at you every year-as the biggest\nand the hard place. between the conse-\ndeficit spender in American history?\nquence of your added trillion-dollar deficit\n-George McGovern. former senator\nand the new tax policies on one hand, and\n(D-S.D.) and Democratic nominee for\nthe loss of social programs formerly\npresident in 1972\nfunded by the federal government on the\nother? That is, are you still suggesting\n#\nMr. President, you came into office\nthat we just mosey along somewhere else,\non a conservative platform and offered a\nor do you have a policy for the cities?\nnumber of measures to cut down govern-\n-Harold Washington. Democratic\nmental activity.\nmayor of Chicago\n166\nIn light of the fiasco of Iran, the swap\nof a Soviet spy for an American journalist,\nthe failure of Reykjavik to move towards\neffective arms control, the skirting of U.S.\nlaws by sending an American arms-supply\nRodman\nplane to Nicaragua and the clumsy disin-\nformation campaign against Libya, what\nchanges do you plan to restore compe-\ntence and credibility to the conduct of\nU.S. foreign policy?\n-John Brademas, president of New\nYork University and former\ncongressman (D-Ind.)\nThe GOP lost the Senate. Republican\ncandidates lost 13 of 16 races you cam-\npaigned in. the chairman of the Joint Chiefs\nof Staff apparently disagrees with the po-\nsition you took in Iceland. and only 14 per-\ncent of the American public believes that\nyour statement about not trading arms for\nhostages is essentially true. Haven't you\nlost a little zip off of your fast ball?\n-Harrison Hickman. Democratic\npollster\nIs there an acceptable middle point\nbetween your position on SDI [Strategic\nDefense Initiative] testing and that of So-\nviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev? Are there\nrestrictions on the number, type or con-\nduct of SDI tests that would allow re-\nsearch to continue at an acceptable pace\nand also assure the Soviets that the U.S.\nplans no breakout from the ABM [Anti-\nballistic Missile] Treaty?\n-William E. Colby, CIA director.\n1973-76\nYou have called for a policy of\nSD:\nDONE\nstrength. saying this was the only way to\nget the Russians to behave. Can you point\nNSC\nto one example where your military build-\nup and your rhetoric have succeeded in\nmaking the Russians behave better?\n-Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.)\nYou have called for a worldwide dem-\nocratic revolution. Why haven't you\npushed for such a revolution where you\nRodman\nhave your strongest influence. in such ar-\neas as South Korea and South Africa?\nNS<\n-Andrew Young, Democratic mayor\nof Atlanta and former U.S.\nambassador to the United Nations\nDo you intend to support Vice Pres-\nident Bush or someone eise for the GOP\nnomination in 1988?\nTHE WASHINGTON POST\n-Richard Nathan. professor at\nPrinceton. former assistant budget\ndirector and deputy undersecretary of\nWEDNESDAY. NOVEMBER 19. 1986\nhealth. education and weifare in the\nNixon administration\n167\nA NAME PASSPORT NUMBER AND COUNTRY HAVE BEEN\nBLOCKED OUT ON THIS DOCUMENT WHICH CONTAINS\nTHE TRUE NAME IDENTITY OF A FOREIGN NATIONAL\nDOMACHER OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES. I BELIEVE\nTHAT DISCLOSURE of THIS INFORMATION, KNOWN ONLY TO we\nWORLD RESULT IN THE DEATH of THIS Reeson.\nTravel Document\nDOB: 1941\nNew ETA 1830\n168"
}