Salon | Letters to the editor

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - page 2 of 2

Thank God Orrin Hatch, in his commentary after the president's public confession, brought up the one thing that was irking me beyond anything else. How, I kept groaning, could Bill Clinton attack Kenneth Starr for carrying on this investigation for the past seven months (an investigation we all know was approved by his attorney general) when President Clinton himself could have ended it immediately by simply telling the truth in the beginning? Where is the apology to the American people for the millions spent and the time wasted to push this man into a corner until he'd finally 'fess up? Where was the apology to the people who spent thousands on their own legal counsel because of being subpoenaed as part of this investigation, who would have been spared all this agony if their president had only been truthful?
As for Bill Clinton's statement that he never told anyone to cover up or lie for him, he had his advisors and friends and his own family standing before the news cameras declaring his innocence. What's his excuse for this one, that "technically" he did not tell anyone to lie? And one more thing: If I hear another commentator refer to the American people as "too sophisticated" to worry about this issue anymore (a nauseatingly obvious attempt at flattery directed at people who would just love to think their complacency and stupidity is "sophistication"), I think I'll puke.
-- Kathleen Sedwick
Let me say first that I don't approve of Clinton's behavior, and I'm appalled that he would treat his wife and family this way. While I'm shocked at his affair, I'm most amazed at his stupidity. With his political enemies circling the White House like a pack of jackals, why would he start an extramarital affair in the first place? And to make matters worse, it was with a girl only a few years older than his daughter, a girl whose judgment in picking friends was only slightly worse than her judgment in picking lovers. Forced by political necessity to admit his deed to the nation, he tried to put the best face on it that he could -- a natural reaction, though it hardly appeased his critics.
But let's put things into perspective: Clinton is hardly the first American president to have had an affair. In the 20th century alone, presidents Harding, Franklin Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson have been accused of having adulterous relationships, to varying degrees of scandal. Also, Woodrow Wilson's relationship with Edith Bolling Galt was heavily criticized, though he was a widower at the time and later married her. (Jimmy Carter, who only had lust in his heart, doesn't count.) Going back a bit further, Grover Cleveland had a child out of wedlock and Thomas Jefferson sired children by his slave, Sally Heming. (Jefferson is incidentally one of the Founding Fathers who conservative pundits swear are "spinning in their graves" over Clinton's actions.) As far as I can tell, the sexual behavior of past presidents had little or no relationship to their abilities as chief executive.
Clinton's infidelity casts a shadow on his presidency and may well prevent him from achieving anything of substance in the rest of his term. However, it is a private matter that should have remained between him and his wife. The Supreme Court decision that a sitting president can face legal action in civil suits and Ken Starr's overarching Whitewater investigation trouble me more than Clinton's affair. The Supreme Court decision exposes a president to any number of scurrilous lawsuits filed by his (or her) political enemies. The Paula Jones case is the first in what I believe will be a long series of suits against future presidents that will waste the taxpayer's money and the president's time and energy. Ken Starr's investigation ranks with McCarthy's Communist witch hunt as one of the most shameful abuses of power in recent history. The $40 million that he's spent so far in fruitlessly investigating Whitewater, Vince Foster and Paula Jones (trashing reputations without remorse until he finally hit pay dirt with Monica Lewinsky) would have been better spent on almost anything else.
Republicans who are chortling over Clinton's troubles should beware. If they gain the presidency in 2000, the Democrats will turn every nasty trick in the Republican arsenal against them. There will be no winners in that fight.
-- Nancy Ott

_______________THE VIEW FROM EUROPE SALON CORRESPONDENTS (08/19/98)

The European reaction to the so-called Zippergate scandal is just the sort of ignorant, pompous hypocrisy that that I've come to expect. I keep hearing the claim that Europeans are much more politically sophisticated than Americans. The continent that gave us Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, anti-Jewish pogroms, the Holocaust, Bosnia, Chechnya and two World Wars has nothing to teach about political sophistication. It was unsophisticated America that had to come over and straighten out WWI and WWII and spend $7 trillion defending against communist dictatorships. Clinton is a pathological liar. Americans should care about the rule of law or we will start down the dangerous road of subjective truths. Thanks all the same, idiot Europeans, we'll look after our own affairs.
-- Tom Hoffman
Venice, Fla.

_______________WHAT THEY'RE SAYING BY LORI LEIBOVICH AND DAWN MacKEEN(08/18/98)

Just when it appeared all traces of common sense, objectivity and historical perspective had been swallowed whole by a voracious media allied with a predatory right wing, the fearless voice of reason is again presented by Salon with irresistible clarity: Vincent Bugliosi exposes the partisan sludge that precipitated and then consumed Ken Starr's investigation of Bill Clinton and reduced the term "independent counsel" to comic nonsense.
For months I have challenged anyone to provide a legal precedent in which a citizen was made the target of criminal perjury investigation for possibly concealing a peripheral sexual encounter via testimony in a deposition for a subsequently dismissed civil lawsuit. It surely takes time to research several hundred years of American jurisprudence. However, I am still waiting. In the meantime, I can only say thank you, Salon, and thank you, Mr. Bugliosi.
-- Gerald White
SALON | Aug. 21, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| WALK LIKE A MAN BY NED STAFFORD

If you'd like to submit a letter to the editor for publication,
please e-mail us at salon@salonmagazine.com.
Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness.
If you do not wish the letter to be published, please say so.

	- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - page 2 of 2

	Thank God Orrin Hatch, in his commentary after the president's public confession, brought up the one thing that was irking me beyond anything else. How, I kept groaning, could Bill Clinton attack Kenneth Starr for carrying on this investigation for the past seven months (an investigation we all know was approved by his attorney general) when President Clinton himself could have ended it immediately by simply telling the truth in the beginning? Where is the apology to the American people for the millions spent and the time wasted to push this man into a corner until he'd finally 'fess up? Where was the apology to the people who spent thousands on their own legal counsel because of being subpoenaed as part of this investigation, who would have been spared all this agony if their president had only been truthful? As for Bill Clinton's statement that he never told anyone to cover up or lie for him, he had his advisors and friends and his own family standing before the news cameras declaring his innocence. What's his excuse for this one, that "technically" he did not tell anyone to lie? And one more thing: If I hear another commentator refer to the American people as "too sophisticated" to worry about this issue anymore (a nauseatingly obvious attempt at flattery directed at people who would just love to think their complacency and stupidity is "sophistication"), I think I'll puke. -- Kathleen Sedwick Let me say first that I don't approve of Clinton's behavior, and I'm appalled that he would treat his wife and family this way. While I'm shocked at his affair, I'm most amazed at his stupidity. With his political enemies circling the White House like a pack of jackals, why would he start an extramarital affair in the first place? And to make matters worse, it was with a girl only a few years older than his daughter, a girl whose judgment in picking friends was only slightly worse than her judgment in picking lovers. Forced by political necessity to admit his deed to the nation, he tried to put the best face on it that he could -- a natural reaction, though it hardly appeased his critics. But let's put things into perspective: Clinton is hardly the first American president to have had an affair. In the 20th century alone, presidents Harding, Franklin Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson have been accused of having adulterous relationships, to varying degrees of scandal. Also, Woodrow Wilson's relationship with Edith Bolling Galt was heavily criticized, though he was a widower at the time and later married her. (Jimmy Carter, who only had lust in his heart, doesn't count.) Going back a bit further, Grover Cleveland had a child out of wedlock and Thomas Jefferson sired children by his slave, Sally Heming. (Jefferson is incidentally one of the Founding Fathers who conservative pundits swear are "spinning in their graves" over Clinton's actions.) As far as I can tell, the sexual behavior of past presidents had little or no relationship to their abilities as chief executive. Clinton's infidelity casts a shadow on his presidency and may well prevent him from achieving anything of substance in the rest of his term. However, it is a private matter that should have remained between him and his wife. The Supreme Court decision that a sitting president can face legal action in civil suits and Ken Starr's overarching Whitewater investigation trouble me more than Clinton's affair. The Supreme Court decision exposes a president to any number of scurrilous lawsuits filed by his (or her) political enemies. The Paula Jones case is the first in what I believe will be a long series of suits against future presidents that will waste the taxpayer's money and the president's time and energy. Ken Starr's investigation ranks with McCarthy's Communist witch hunt as one of the most shameful abuses of power in recent history. The $40 million that he's spent so far in fruitlessly investigating Whitewater, Vince Foster and Paula Jones (trashing reputations without remorse until he finally hit pay dirt with Monica Lewinsky) would have been better spent on almost anything else. Republicans who are chortling over Clinton's troubles should beware. If they gain the presidency in 2000, the Democrats will turn every nasty trick in the Republican arsenal against them. There will be no winners in that fight. -- Nancy Ott
_______________THE VIEW FROM EUROPE SALON CORRESPONDENTS (08/19/98)
	The European reaction to the so-called Zippergate scandal is just the sort of ignorant, pompous hypocrisy that that I've come to expect. I keep hearing the claim that Europeans are much more politically sophisticated than Americans. The continent that gave us Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, anti-Jewish pogroms, the Holocaust, Bosnia, Chechnya and two World Wars has nothing to teach about political sophistication. It was unsophisticated America that had to come over and straighten out WWI and WWII and spend $7 trillion defending against communist dictatorships. Clinton is a pathological liar. Americans should care about the rule of law or we will start down the dangerous road of subjective truths. Thanks all the same, idiot Europeans, we'll look after our own affairs. -- Tom Hoffman Venice, Fla.
_______________WHAT THEY'RE SAYING BY LORI LEIBOVICH AND DAWN MacKEEN(08/18/98)
	Just when it appeared all traces of common sense, objectivity and historical perspective had been swallowed whole by a voracious media allied with a predatory right wing, the fearless voice of reason is again presented by Salon with irresistible clarity: Vincent Bugliosi exposes the partisan sludge that precipitated and then consumed Ken Starr's investigation of Bill Clinton and reduced the term "independent counsel" to comic nonsense. For months I have challenged anyone to provide a legal precedent in which a citizen was made the target of criminal perjury investigation for possibly concealing a peripheral sexual encounter via testimony in a deposition for a subsequently dismissed civil lawsuit. It surely takes time to research several hundred years of American jurisprudence. However, I am still waiting. In the meantime, I can only say thank you, Salon, and thank you, Mr. Bugliosi. -- Gerald White SALON \| Aug. 21, 1998