Impeachment foes endorse Clinton's wrongful behaviorI find...


October 08, 1998

Impeachment foes endorse Clinton's wrongful behavior

I find your lead editorial ("No grounds are shown for an impeachment," Sept. 27) to be both insulting and disappointing.

By taking this position, you are going on record as openly endorsing: lying under oath, lying to a grand jury, conspiring to defraud the court, obstructing justice through lying to those surrounding the president -- while knowing they would repeat those lies in front of the grand jury -- and hiding behind legal technicalities.

That position also would appear to endorse abolition of sexual harassment laws as we know them -- all such cases in the future will no doubt resort to the "Clinton Defense" -- as a way to excuse improper sexual behavior by a superior with a subordinate.

When Watergate dominated the news, I joined the throng calling for Richard Nixon's head. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the burglary or the cover-up. The reason I supported ousting Nixon was that he abdicated his responsibilities as president. For six months, we were paralyzed as he turned slowly in the wind.

I see very close parallels between Nixon and Mr. Clinton. Deplorable conduct in office, use of government resources to cover up what, in essence, were small crimes and essentially going into hiding to avoid the public.

It slays me the degree to which you have gone to vilify Kenneth Starr for doing his job. You express anger at Mr. Starr and Congress for releasing explicit details but show little anger at the individual who actually engaged in this behavior in the Oval Office, a place considered sacred by most Americans.

Lying under oath is a felony and clearly fits the definition. Yet you give Mr. Clinton a pass because he espouses your liberal agenda.

Ask yourself where The Sun would be on this issue if Clarence Thomas had been caught in "inappropriate" sexual conduct with a 21-year-old law clerk. If you are honest, I think you know the answer.

Gary D. Ballard

Bel Air

From liberal Democrat: Clinton should resign

I am an ardent Democrat. If pressed, I might even confess to being a liberal. I happily voted for President Clinton twice and consider him the most competent president in my lifetime. I also despise many of his critics and consider their moral indignation to be even more repugnant than the president's misconduct.

I think the president is largely a victim in all of this, a victim of the public's outrageous invasion of his privacy.

Despite all of this, I believe he has squandered his presidency and has become a liability to our party and our nation. It is time for him to go. He should resign, and sooner rather than later.

The fact that the president has lost someone like me means he is in real trouble, and the sooner he faces this fact, the better for all of us.

Larry DeWitt


Better explanation needed of mustard agent disposal

I cannot believe what I read in your newspaper ("Aberdeen gets Army OK for mustard agent plan," Sept. 30). The headline wasn't too bad, but I had a problem with your first paragraph that said the Army planned to destroy its stockpile of mustard agent by "neutralizing it and dumping it in the Bush River."

Your reporter Neal Thompson doesn't explain what "it" is. The first "it" is neutralizing mustard agent. The second "it" is water left over from the biodegradation process, which your reporter felt was so unimportant that he left it out of the first paragraph.

About 12 paragraphs later, biodegradation is mentioned, but only after many readers are upset at the Army's dumping anything in the Bush River. If your reporter would have said leftover, purified water, instead of "it," I would not feel compelled to write this letter.

Concerned Citizens has spent 13 years studying this issue. We opposed an incinerator and we would oppose dumping anything hazardous in the Bush River.

Linda Koplovitz

Bel Air

The writer is president of Concerned Citizens for Maryland's Environment and is a member of the Maryland State Citizens Advisory Commission on Demilitarization.

With social insecurity, it's not time to cut taxes

The Congressional Budget Office claims that no true surplus is in sight before 2006 and that it will evaporate after 2008 when the baby boomers begin to retire and claim Social Security benefits. The budget surplus is an illusion, visible only by borrowing billions of dollars earmarked for Social Security pay for routine costs of government. In return, Social Security receives a big pile of IOUs.

Tax cuts now would compound future deficits and worsen the Social Security funding crisis.

However, if the next recession is severe, a broad-based tax cut may be needed to stimulate the economy.

My friends and I hope that someday the Robin Hoods of the red ink in Washington will stop spending money that our government does not have.

Joseph Lerner


Republican tax cut appeals to greed

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.