by Bob Woodward
-- The office which you mentioned to me specifically -- the one in which you noticed 2 pictures of President Kennedy -- is supervised by Edna Rosenberg, a civil servant at the GS-9 level, who has the distinction of having served on the White House Staff longer than anyone else. . . . 41 years this coming March 7th. I have checked her file very carefully and found that the House Committee on Un-American Activities, the Civil Service Commission’s Bureau of Personnel Investigation, the State Department and its Passport Office, the CIA, the Secret Service, and the FBI have all rendered continual reports to the effect that she is a “completely loyal American whose character, reputation, and associations are above reproach.” Born in 1902 here in Washington, D.C., she has remained single all of these years, and lives now with a sister (Miss Janette Rosenberg) in Silver Spring, Maryland.
-- One of the Kennedy pictures bore a personal inscription of good wishes to the personnel of that office, and undoubtedly for that reason had been retained and displayed by those who work there.
-- Using to best advantage the fact that your new official photographs have just been printed and made accessible to Federal offices and employees, I instructed Bill Hopkins to see to it that every office supervisor received one and in the process of hanging it on the wall took all others down . . . “in accordance with normal policy”.
-- On January 14th the project was completed and all 35 offices displayed only your photograph.
The second half of this project -- i.e. to ensure across-the-board loyalty of all White House Support Staff personnel even if we find it necessary to “abolish current office arrangements and start over from scratch” -- is underway; but I cannot yet report results. I am in the process of screening personnel records and within 2-3 days will be ready to suggest possible courses of action to Bob Haldeman.
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 13, 1970
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. BUTTERFIELD
RE:
Church Services
The President has said that he would like to have church every other Sunday during the winter period. Obviously, the schedule will not work out to the every other Sunday sequence. However, we will be having church on a rather frequent basis.
The basic purpose will be to use it as a political opportunity. We should invite potential candidates, finance people, new GOP-type leaders from around the country, those people from the eastern and southern portions of the United States who would find it easy to come in to town for a church service and our other friends.
We will try to lock in the church dates as far in advance as possible. This is just to alert you to the President’s current thinking.
The President also feels that we should have guest lists developed so that once a church service is decided upon, we can go forth with the invitations with what few alterations might be necessary due to instructions from him.
H. R. HALDEMAN
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 23, 1970
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. BUTTERFIELD
MR. COLSON
Attached you will find a newspaper clipping from the New York Daily News which takes on our partisan use of the White House Church Services.
We should, instead be using these services as an opportunity to be nice to our enemies--and their families--as well as to reward our friends.
Please be sure we always include Democrats and others known to be non-supporters of the Administration--but not to outright opponents.
H. R. HALDEMAN
Attachment
[HANDWRITTEN NOTES]
[To the left of the second paragraph] “Dems & others on the ‘other side’ to worship services”
[At the bottom in Butterfield’s handwriting] “Being taken care of”
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 10, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR:
ALEX BUTTERFIELD
FROM:
H. R. HALDEMAN
It’s absolutely imperative that it clearly be understood by all concerned that Edward B. Fiske, the Religion Editor of the New York Times, is not to be invited to any White House Church Services again in the future under any circumstances whatsoever.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 19, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR:
ALEX BUTTERFIELD
FROM:
H. R. HALDEMAN
Please be sure that we are enforcing the regulation that invitations to the press for White House Church Services are on a totally controlled basis and handled by invitation. There should be no press pool or any general press admission to these services.
The New York Times and New York Post must never be invited to these services. No one from either of the papers - at any time.
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 22, 1971
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
ALEX BUTTERFIELD
FROM:
H. R. HALDEMAN
For the time being, hold up on Arthur Burns on any social invitations, just keep him off the list for a little while. Check with me in three or four weeks to see if he should be put back on for something or other. In the meantime keep him off of Church, etc.
CONFIDENTIAL
See Al Haig
1 Too often says that he absolutely must get in to see the President. Frequently not all as urgent as K intimated, or stated.
Like the boy who cried, “Wolf”
Presidential statement (Aug 7) re M.E. ceasefire ex. of President’s current reaction & attitude
2 Enters President’s office w/o checking. President may have sent for Henry, but Henry must check with Bull’s office before going in. The President could be on the phone etc.
3 Late to meetings in the President’s office – mtgs in which he is to participate, etc.
4 Slow to respond when called at odd time of day unusually slow.
Ex 1. 20 min & 3 phone calls
Ex. 2 22 min & 7 phone calls
5 Imprecise re amount of time he needs. 2 minutes develops into 20 minutes. He should state time needed & try harder to follow that lead. Entire day’s schedule is affected.
6 Briefing papers: 1 timely submission; 2 more accurate re participants; 3 address &/or photo plan
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 9, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR:
ALEX BUTTERFIELD
FROM:
H. R. HALDEMAN
In seating at State Dinners, the President feels that Henry should not always be put next to the most glamorous woman present. He should be put by an intelligent and interesting dinner partner and we should shift from the practice of putting him by the best looking one. It’s starting to cause unfavorable talk that serves no useful purpose.
[HANDWRITTEN NOTE]
[In Butterfield’s handwriting] “Relayed to Lucy personally”
[In Warren E. Burger’s handwriting]
Dear Mr. Ehrlichman
Here is a letter which I wish you would hand to the President. I am willing to risk annoying him for what I consider is important to the Country – and to him.
Cordially,
WEB
May 8, 1969
Dear Mr. President:
I had thought to write you Tuesday on what seemed to me an unwise course followed by some in contrast with the carefully correct course you followed in the Fortas matter. I wish now I had expressed my views promptly, for as a member of the Judiciary, I conclude I have a right to do so on a matter so significantly involving the courts. The developments since Monday - and particularly the utterances from members of the Congress - are, in my view, very damaging to the country, the courts generally and potentially to you.
This week is a time for
Republican leaders to “view with dismay” and to “be saddened” and “disturbed” but largely silent. They should not “attack.” First there is the matter of basic fairness. Second there are political consequences which will have an impact on the courts and the Supreme Court in particular and especially on the first nomination you send to the Senate.
As to basic fairness: if the facts condemn the conduct of a Supreme Court Justice then let the facts do it in their own good time. If the facts do not warrant condemnation then oratory ought not destroy what the facts cannot. Oratory such as most of that emitted on the Hill tends to obscure the facts and their significance.
As to political consequences: first the public, which is so often more correct than its leaders, may well resent “prejudgment”; second the 1968 Senate supporters of Fortas for Chief Justice have really nothing to say now but they should be left in the center of the stage and not pushed aside by others. At the present rate of oratory they are forgotten but they are bound to be bitter over the harsh attacks - including the curiously and surprisingly hasty condemnation by the Washington POST. As a consequence when your first nomination goes to the Senate, this suppressed rage will likely assert itself and your nominee may become their “whipping boy.” That in turn will exacerbate the distressing situation in which the Court now finds itself; it will be very damaging to the country and it may be bad for your objective of restoring the Court to its former high standing.
I hope that someone will point out, gently but firmly, that the American system gives every man the benefit of the presumption of innocence in the face of any charge and that everyone should suspend judgment. Time, then, - and the facts - will carry this crisis of the Court to its inevitable conclusion.
Cordially,
Warren E. Burger
The President
The White House
Supreme Court of the United States
Washington. D. C. 20543
May 10, 1971
Dear Mr. President:
I was tempted to phone you Saturday night after the dinner but feared I might disturb your household. Your fortitude and forbearance in the face of gross rudeness by your hosts will always have my unbounded admiration. In my many personal observations of the press corps over the past 18 years this was one of their worst performances. To respond as you did with dignity and charity is a mark of your qualities and I suspect it was not lost on all those present.
It is no comfort but it is perhaps instructive to remember how the press treated your predecessors, and particularly Washington and Lincoln. Having been reading closely some of the events from 1789 to 1800, fairness to the present day press corps compels acknowledgment that they are now slightly less savage, less sadistic and less cruel than 150 to 200 years ago. So viewed, this is progress of sorts.
I repeat that Saturday night marked a new measure of your capacities that will in time be recognized, and enlarged my respect and esteem.
Sincerely,
Warren E. Burger
The President
The White House
Supreme Court of the United States
Washington. D. C. 20543
August 5, 1972
CONFIDENTIAL
Dear Mr. Haldeman:
I write you with some reluctance to clarify the matter of security transportation when I travel by air.
Shortly after I took office in 1969 the President inquired about what security measures were provided for me. I advised him that the security of our building was very high; that we lived in an isolated place and had random, periodic checks on the house by local police arranged by Edgar Hoover who was concerned about the risks. We subsequently had my driver commissioned as a Deputy United States Marshal.
At the time of this conversation the President urged me to take nothing for granted on security measures and to especially avoid use of commercial airlines. He was aware, as I was, that since the advent of “skyjacking” Earl Warren, at the direction of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, had been provided with Air Force facilities, including travel overseas. He said my office should work the air travel with your office.
Subsequently this was done and General Hughes, at your direction, I assume, provided transportation on three occasions since 1969. Because I was reluctant to call for this service I have traveled by train or car whenever possible and have severely limited all travel.
When I went to London last July for the American Bar Association meeting and in February 1972 to London for another important meeting, I used commercial transport with special checks on passengers under the direction of the FBI and the U. S. Marshal. I preferred not to ask overseas facilities, although on one trip I was able to “hitchhike” on a military flight.
Some months ago my staff routinely requested transportation to San Francisco for the August American Bar Association meeting. At the same time I requested transportation to Europe but only on a “space available” basis on a regular Air Force flight between August 20-25. The trip to Europe was to attend the International Bar Association Conference. Both the President and the Secretary of State urged me to attend that gathering.
Meanwhile a new White House transportation officer has been dealing with the matter and reported that no flights were available August 20-25 to Europe and I cancelled that engagement.
My appearance at the ABA in San Francisco, however, is a regularly scheduled annual event and I must attend. However, General Scowcroft advised that some arrangement must be made to reimburse the Defense Department. Having gone over this ground with General Hughes several years ago, we advised General Scowcroft that the Supreme Court has no budget provision of the proportions called for by Air Force rates. The suggestion was made that the cost be charged to the Justice Department, which I am unwilling to do. I cannot be placed in that position with the principal litigants in the Federal courts. Neither am I willing to be placed in the position of a supplicant asking for a “favor” since it is distinctly not my idea that I have government transportation. I therefore directed my office to advise General Scowcroft yesterday to cancel all plans for Air Force transportation to San Francisco and return and to make no further requests hereafter.
I write you at this unfortunate length so that you will have the whole picture and will understand that I am not voluntarily disregarding the President’s request that I avoid commercial air flights.
I repeat that I regret to burden you with this matter but in light of the pattern established by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson and the request of President Nixon in 1969, I feel I must clarify the record. I want it to be clear that I am not ignoring the strong request of the President.
Cordially,
Warren E. Burger
Honorable H. R. Haldeman
Assistant to the President
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
EYES ONLY
June 20, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
AL HAIG
Here are my views and accompanying analysis on the four points raised in your memorandum of June 12:
1. What should the President’s posture be between the Conventions?
Unquestionably the events between now and the Democratic Convention and most importantly events at the Convention itself will influence the ultimate strategy on the President’s posture. Nevertheless at this juncture it is quite evident that the President is in a very strong position which is best retained and reinforced by maintaining a posture which is totally consistent with the achievements that have most decisively contributed to his popularity. These achievements are a solid statesman-like performance in the international area. They have been premised on flexible and progressive attitudes and the willingness to take risks in search of world peace and were masterfully combined with: (a) strength and decisiveness when U. S. interests are challenged; (b) the retention of initiative and
momentum which has consistently enabled the President to stay ahead of the pessimism normally associated with stagnation, inactivity and lack of imagination; (c) the solidification of the world statesman role through which the President has captured national empathy based on his masterful performances in Peking and Moscow which were well-covered on national television; and (d) the development of a “Mr. & Mrs.” team image which would not have been possible had total emphasis been on the President alone.
Based on the foregoing, the President’s posture should be one of a statesman who is above the frantic gut-fighting and politicking of the campaign, whose strength and competence is taken fully for granted by a Party machine whose major task should be to engage in the cool organizational arrangements which are designed to exploit a solid posture of accomplishment.
I sense one possible distortion creeping into current assumptions about the Democratic candidate. Many of our political strategists are taking for granted that McGovern will emerge as the Democratic candidate. This was evident in the strategy discussions held in last week’s Cabinet meeting. We must be prepared for an emotional convention consensus in favor of Teddy Kennedy. It is difficult to conceive of the old Democratic Party machinery, which relies essentially on a power base of Labor, Jewish money and nouveau riche resources, merging to support a candidate of McGovern’s ilk since each of these sources of power could be seriously threatened by his stated policies. For this reason our contingency planning must not overlook the possibility of a surprise popular surge in July which would settle on Kennedy as the only hope for the Democratic Party.
2. What should the President’s posture be from the Republican Convention to the election? When should he start campaigning? How much travel should he do, where should he go, what type of activities should he engage in?
