3 November 2005
TO: RIMA CALDERON c/o
Director Corporate Communications
The Washington Post Company
CC: PULITZER BOARD
Committee of Evidence Request for Information
Re: Events on and around 28 May 1972
Open Letter
Dear Ms. Calderon,
I am Secretary Pro Tem for an independent international Committee
of Evidence, and I am writing to you on matters that I believe to
be of some significant consequence to the Washington Post
Company. I must state at the outset my concern that, given the
extraordinary nature of some of the matters I must raise, you
might abruptly dismiss this inquiry without giving it full and
due attention. I can only hope, with these introductory
statements, to beg you to stay your hand from any such
inclination, to grant me the courtesy of reading this all the way
through, and to soberly and respectfully consider this briefing
and sincere request for information that uniquely is the province
of the Washington Post Company.
I will end my opening caveats by sharing briefly the experience
of Committee members in coming to terms with the matters
addressed herein: as in many human affairs, the realization of
trust betrayed is often met initially by manifestations of denial
and disbelief. Where the trust or reliance has been great, such
initial reactions can be quite strong. If some of the issues I
raise herein stimulate such reactions, again I can only beseech
you to suspend rejection long enough, at least, to reach the test
of due diligence.
That said: the 052872 Committee of Evidence is a fact-finding
body that has been convened to investigate sober and well
supported allegations that the claims, testimony, and reports of
a "first break-in" on 28 May 1972 at the Watergate complex are,
and at all relevant times have been, false and fraudulent,
including numerous such claims, reports, and news stories
published by the Washington Post, as reported primarily by Bob
Woodward and Carl Bernstein.
I must stress "first break-in." That is the focus of our
investigation. There is no question about the so-called "second
break-in" during which the co-conspirators were apprehended,
after which they collusively, and anecdotally, asserted the fact
of a "first break-in" having taken place. Our evidence and
testimony strongly suggest that their apprehension was by design,
with the express purpose of concocting and spreading the story of
the fictional "first break-in," for reasons expanded upon below.
I feel certain that I needn't belabor here the possible grave
ramifications of our investigation in relation to your
corporation, its history, and its reputation. Not the least of
such ramifications involves the awarding of a Pulitzer Prize to
the Washington Post for articles asserting that such a "first
break-in" had, in fact, occurred on 28 May 1972, and in that
light I am cc:ing the Pulitzer Board.
The Committee has labored intensively for months over a massive
and still growing collection of evidence and testimony, the
preponderance of it pointing almost inexorably toward a
conclusion by any rational, unbiased, and prudent person that the
Washington Post reports of a "first break-in" at the Watergate
complex on the night of 28 May 1972 are entirely a fiction,
supported only by hopelessly contradictory, if
self-incriminating, statements of the co-conspirators themselves,
whose statements and assertions, however sophomoric and even
nonsensical at times, were first given international currency and
credence by your flagship publication.
I invite you--even urge you--to conduct your own search for any
single trace of independent evidence other than the statements of
the co-conspirators themselves that lends any credibility at all
to their having been inside the DNC headquarters on 28 May 1972.
The Committee has conducted an exhaustive search.
There is no such evidence--only the conflicting statements and
claims of the Watergate co-conspirators themselves.
Once denial ends and due diligence begins, the fact stated
immediately above becomes starkly, if alarmingly, apparent. In
fact, there is considerable evidence that weighs heavily against
any possibility of a "first break-in." Most baldly stated, an
entire complex history has been built on nothing more substantial
than the unverified and unverifiable collusive assertions of
admitted felons.
So compelling is the evidence and testimony against a "first
break-in" ever having taken place, the Committee is confident
beyond a reasonable doubt at having passed that milestone, and is
of one accord on having determined that no such event took place.
There is an ensuing flood of almost overwhelming questions that
arises immediately upon arrival at such a conclusion, questions
that we still are struggling to find answers to. Hence this
letter of request for vital information.
I cannot possibly, in one letter, brief you adequately on all of
the evidence and testimony we have reviewed. I only can tell you
the direction our investigation is now taking as it relates to
the Washington Post Company, and ask for your cooperation in
helping us get to the truth. Limited by the economy of this
medium then, here are summaries of the specific matters I must
bring to your attention, followed by my requests for relevant
information:
1. Our evidence and testimony indicates, and the Committee
currently is of the opinion, that the purpose of the stories told
by the co-conspirators of an alleged "first break-in" was to
provide an alibi for the actual whereabouts and activities of,
without exclusivity, G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt on and
around 28 May 1972, and, furthermore,
2. Our evidence and testimony indicates, and the Committee
currently is of the opinion, that Woodward and Bernstein had
prior knowledge of the Watergate operation, knew that there had
been no "first break-in," and were knowingly and collusively
involved with disseminating false information concerning the
alleged "first break-in" in order to lend credence to the alibi
being formulated by the co-conspirators and their superiors in
the intelligence community, and, furthermore,
3. Our evidence and testimony indicates, and the Committee
currently is of the opinion, that Bob Woodward at all relevant
times had collusive ties to intelligence organizations of the
United States, including but not limited to the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), not solely in the capacity of
journalist but also in the capacity of covert operative, and,
furthermore,
4. Our evidence and testimony indicates, and the Committee
currently is of the opinion, that the reason no journalist or
investigator or any other individual or agency ever was able to
determine the identity of the person or persons who "ordered" the
"first break-in" is very simply because no "first break-in" ever
took place at all, and, furthermore,
5. Our evidence and testimony indicates, and the Committee
currently is of the opinion, that the reason no journalist or
investigator or any other individual or agency ever was able to
determine the identity of "Deep Throat" for over thirty years is
very simply because there never was any "Deep Throat," that being
only a fictional device concocted by Woodward, Bernstein, Ben
Bradlee, et al., as a cover for the intelligence agency
information and instructions being delivered to Woodward, and,
furthermore,
6. Our evidence and testimony indicates, and the Committee
currently is of the opinion, that the recent "revelation" by
Woodward, Bradlee, et al. of "the real Deep Throat" having been
former FBI official Mark Felt was a regretably transparent
attempt to derail this investigation through broad public
"validation" of their fiction, and is nothing more than a
continuation of the fraud by the perpetrators at high levels,
and, furthermore,
7. Our evidence and testimony indicates, and the Committee
currently is of the opinion, that the highest officials of the
Washington Post at the relevant times, including but not
necessarily limited to Katherine Graham and Ben Bradlee, were
knowingly involved in the use of the Washington Post as a
mouthpiece for United States intelligence interests to perpetrate
this fraud upon the American people and the world, and,
furthermore,
8. Our evidence and testimony indicates, and the Committee
currently is of the opinion, that current Chairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer Donald E. Graham has unique
percipient knowledge of some significant parts or all of the
foregoing.
Therefore, on behalf of the Committee I am compelled in my role
as Secretary Pro Tem to ask the following:
1. Will the Washington Post Company cooperate with this Committee
in mutual purpose to arrive at the truth, and in doing so to
verify or dismiss the serious concerns and questions, raised
herein, that inescapably are inherent in the fruits of our
investigation to date?
Of course all specific requests for information, below, depend
utterly on your affirmative response to Question 1 above. The
Committee would appreciate receiving an affirmative response no
later than 21 November 2005. If I have not received your
affirmative response by that date, the Committee will conclude
that the Washington Post Company willfully refuses to cooperate
in our fact-finding mission, and will reflect that in its
International Findings and Recommendations to duly constituted
authorities in each affected nation.
Presuming that the Washington Post Company is every bit as
interested at arriving at the truth as are we, the Committee, and
therefore presuming that we will receive your affirmative
response to Question 1, these are my initial requests for
specific information, with the understanding that assembling
useful responses may require some time:
2. Does the Washington Post Company or any of its employees,
agents, officers, directors, or representatives have any
independent and verifiable evidence of a "first break-in" at the
Watergate complex on 28 May 1972 (excluding the anecdotal claims
and assertions of co-conspirators)? If so, would you provide such
evidence to this Committee, and if not, why not?
3. Does the Washington Post Company or any of its employees,
agents, officers, directors, or representatives have any
independent and verifiable evidence of there ever having been a
"Deep Throat" (excluding the anecdotal claims and assertions of
Bradlee, Woodward, Bernstein, and Felt)? If so, would you provide
such evidence to this Committee, and if not, why not?
4. Has the Washington Post Company exercised due diligence in
investigating and verifying the anecdotal claims and assertions
of Bradlee, Woodward, Bernstein, et al. in relation to all the
foregoing? If not, why not? If so, could you describe what was
done and provide this Committee with a brief or an Executive
Summary, and if not, why not?
5. The Committee would like to take the testimony of certain of
your corporate employees, including but not necessarily limited
to Donald E. Graham and Bob Woodward, on specific questions that
have been prepared en banc. We would prefer to arrange for in
person testimony before the Committee, but would be willing to
submit the questions to each in writing as interrogatories. Will
the Washington Post Company cooperate and help us to arrange for
such testimony, and if not, why not?
Given the far-reaching gravity and implications of these matters,
it is the recommendation and formal request of the Committee that
this letter be circulated to all officers and directors of the
Washington Post Company, and to certain employees, including but
not necessarily limited to the following:
DONALD E. GRAHAM
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
PATRICK BUTLER
Vice President
DIANA M. DANIELS
Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
ANN L. MCDANIEL
Vice President
CHRISTOPHER MA
Vice President
JOHN B. MORSE, JR.
Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
GERALD M. ROSBERG
Vice President of Planning and Development
DANIEL J. LYNCH
Treasurer
WALLACE R. COONEY
Controller
PINKIE DENT MAYFIELD
Assistant Treasurer
JOHN F. HOCKENBERRY
Assistant Secretary
ROBERT "BOB" WOODWARD
Assistant Managing Editor, The Washington Post
The Committee further requests that you make a good-faith effort
to forward this letter to the following former Washington Post
employees:
BENJAMIN BRADLEE
Former Editor, The Washington Post
CARL BERNSTEIN
Former Washington Post Reporter
In general, the Committee invites each of the above named persons
to submit any evidence, report, statement, or brief that might
help in our mission of arriving at and presenting facts related
to all the foregoing.
I apologize for the length of this letter of request. The task
has been to provide you with sufficient information to petition
your assistance, while maintaining reasonable brevity. I only
hope I have succeeded in the former, if forgivably abusing the
latter.
In closing, I must observe that Ben Bradlee once said that
journalists write "the first rough draft of history." It has been
the unwelcome lot of this Committee to arrive, however
reluctantly, at a conclusion that the "rough draft of history"
written and edited in the early 1970s by Bradlee, Woodward, and
Bernstein goes beyond being flawed, apparently reaching to fraud
on an almost inconceivable scale. The Committee seeks to write a
better second draft. We would be grateful for your help and the
cooperation of the Washington Post Company in ensuring that it is
accurate and untainted.
Finally, I assure you that the Committee members feel to the
depth of their fiber just how far-reaching the Findings and
Recommendations from these proceedings ultimately could be, and
the enormous impact they could have on lives, careers, and
reputations. While it is not our intent to bring harm to any
individual or company, still our mission must be to put the
greater interests of mankind over the self-interests of any
individual, organization, agency, or nation. Our solemn trust is
to arrive at and publish the truth, no matter where the path to
it leads.
For security reasons you cannot reply directly to the e-mail
address you have received this from. All correspondence should be
directed to and will be answered
promptly and respectfully. I would be grateful if you would send
an acknowledgment of receipt of this request to that address.
We beseech your help and cooperation.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Sergei Nadezhda
Secretary Pro Tem
052872 Committee
Order of the Star and Wreath
.
|
