_______________MISTAKES WERE MADE BY GENE LYONS (10/05/98)
	More and more I find myself coming to Salon for any real news on the impeachment debacle. What has happened to the main stream press, and investigative reporting? All of the TV shows and newspapers just go around in circles, rephrasing each other and retreading the same old talking heads. If I hear one more pundit talking about what a "high crime" is, I will kill my TV! So much for (now Harvard prof) Marvin Kalb and his insistence that a free press is the lubrication of a democracy. There is no free press in America; there is just the corporate press, and the only thing it lubricates are the wheels of entrenched power. Reading "Mistakes were made," detailing the misconduct of Kenneth Starr, made me queasy -- kind of the way I felt when I saw the tape of Rodney King being beaten. Starr and the religious nutcakes controlling him misused the mighty power of the state, its police, its courts and our Constitution to bring about a coup d'état. I am reminded of a comment I heard on the day the Clinton videotaped deposition was shown. A man was watching it, sitting in a bar. He shook his head in disbelief, eyes not leaving the screen, and said, "If they can do that to the president of the United States, what could they do to me?" We should all be terrified. -- Susan Epstein, Esq. Thank you for continuing to provide this level of perspective, context and factual detail in an area of the Starr investigation and its sequel that seem to be so greatly underreported elsewhere. The old-media behemoths are finally beginning to mention issues that Salon has pursued for many months. Please continue this line of inquiry back to the three-judge panel with any documentation you may find that they operated from a political agenda rather than a nonpartisan judicial agenda. -- Karen Heggen I am writing to simply commend you for your efforts in reporting to the American people information regarding the dubious nature of the impeachment process taking place in Washington. Your stories on the questionable methods and motives of Ken Starr and the OIC were excellent (in particular, Gene Lyons' "Mistakes were made" and "The fixer" by Murray Waas). I find it very interesting that this information somehow seems to bypass the mainstream media sources. Why is that do you suppose? Could there possibly be another story brewing? I can see the headlines: "Stories the mainstream media refuse to print, and why ..." Once again, you are to be commended for your efforts. Please keep up the good work of keeping us informed. -- Susan C. Walbridge Tonganoxie, Kan. I never even knew about your magazine until you did the story on Congressman Hyde. I just wanted to let you know that I think the story was great and that you did a superb job in covering it. Few today have the courage to stand up to the corporate right wing and their stooges in Congress. But your work at exposing the hypocrisy should be heralded. Not that any of us want the political debate in America to be focused on the irrelevant issue of whose hands or mouths are on whose genitalia, but your piece put the whole ridiculous mess in perspective. -- Jeff Rock Congratulations on figuring out the time line and paper trail on Monica Lewinsky's affidavit. In addition to the questions about the legalities of Starr's inquisition, there are also issues of fairness -- e.g., holding Monica in the hotel -- and of smell -- that Starr's hard ideological position is shared by so many other actors in this whole story, which relates, among other things, to the way Starr got inserted into the investigation. Unless Starr is hiding something, it seems that even with all his resources -- likely, more than any law enforcement agency could have afforded to apply to these matters -- Starr could find nothing even strongly suggesting illegality on the part of the Clintons with respect to Whitewater, Travelgate or Filegate. If there is so little evidence, how did this whole rolling stone get started? -- Bill Cozad Thanks again for continuing (almost alone) to shed light on the dark side of the attempt to destroy the president. Maybe, eventually, the New York Times and others will see fit to print something on this side of the story. Let's hope so. -- Jerry Durham
_______________HYPOCRITE OF THE HOUSE BY JOE CONASON (10/05/98)
	Joe Conason reveals what many Americans already knew, call it a "gut" feeling about the Hyde/Starr Show. When will we see this on the headline news? And when will we read this as headline news? If not for Salon's coverage and the courage and determination to report a more unbiased view of the political vendetta being played out in our nation's capital, I would be just as narrow-minded about the players and their hypocrisies as the right wing. What I find frightening as I watch this thing unfold, is a white, male, conservative, Christian-only, politically manipulated movement to one-party, one-thought rule. This should frighten all who have fought for civil rights, children's rights, freedoms we enjoy, like speech, privacy and the right of women to decide the fate of their body. This one-party rule would send us back to the dark ages. Will the riots of the '60s be necessary again with this batch of political hypocrites in charge of our government? Our country of diverse religions, cultures and beliefs is certainly being threatened by the Gestapo-like mentality afforded us by Starr, and the Hyde hypocrisy is an absolute example of what we have to look forward to when expecting our rights to ever be upheld in our courts, local and Supreme. No wonder they want Bill Clinton out of the White House. He represents and has fought for all things that keep the right from their dream of one-party control. I will never vote for another right-affiliated candidate because of what I have seen in this kangaroo court of the Starr/Hyde political vendetta. I prefer a multi-party system, thank you. -- Nancy Taton As I read Mr. Conason's article about Republican hypocrisy about past adulteries, I was suddenly struck by the fact that all three revelations were about Republicans and not one about Democrats. If the "outings" have not come from the White House dirt detail, it would seem that, against all odds, not one Democratic Congressperson has ever had an adulterous affair. Or if they did, they were so diabolically clever that not one trace or clue was left for reporters. I'm impressed. -- Tony Rohl Nevada City, Calif. Joe Conason is a little weasel lefty puke, and so are his comrades at this little e-mail "magazine"! Get back on your knees and keep suckin' our "Vermin-in-Chief"! -- John Carrigg I do agree in part with Joe Conason's comments about Henry Hyde in respect to Hyde's dealings with Joe Crane. However, I must object to his use of the Chicago anti-abortion case. Regardless of Conason's feelings about abortion, most everyone agrees that the First Amendment is necessary, and should not be infringed upon while making a political protest. And the RICO statute opens the door for abuses of power like the case in Chicago. The use of the RICO racketeering statue has been used to damage political enemies (like NOW did with Scheidler) and was even called by the ACLU "one of the most potent, potentially abusive weapons for silencing dissent." In this case Hyde was on the correct side of the law. He didn't choose to speak out because he was a "moral man," he chose to speak out because the protesters' civil rights were violated. As John Leo pointed out in U.S. News & World Report, talking about the case, "Either you believe in First Amendment rights, or you don't." And thankfully Hyde does. -- Brad Hoover All you've managed to prove is that Republicans (or at least Hyde) are hypocrites too -- which most of us who aren't blind knew anyway. It's ironic that you think digging up dirt on Republicans somehow excuses the Democrats' hypocrisy. On second thought you did also prove that both sides are so deep in it that neither side can see the truth because of it. -- Richard Farley Fort Dix, N.J. SALON | Oct. 7, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| A MATCH MADE IN POP HEAVEN BY STEPHANIE ZACHAREK

If you would like to submit a letter to the editor for publication, please e-mail us at salon@salonmagazine.com. Letters sent by fax or "snail mail" are less likely to be accepted. Do not send attachments. Please include your full name and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours, so we can confirm your identity. This information will not be used for any reason other than verification and will not appear on the site. Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness. Brief letters are more likely to be published. Place the name of the article you are responding to in the subject heading of your e-mail. If you do not wish your letter to be published, please say so in the subject line. For more information on Salon's letters policy, click here.