No evidence to back claim about Clinton inquiryAfter...

Letters to the Editor

October 13, 1998

No evidence to back claim about Clinton inquiry

After reading the title of your lead editorial ("Panel forges ahed, despite people's will," Oct. 6), I expected to see ample evidence to support that contention, that in fact the American people did not want the House Judiciary Committee to open an impeachment inquiry.

That evidence was nowhere to be found. What I found instead was the all-too-familiar attempt by the Clinton apologists to shift attention to supposed wrongdoing by the devil incarnate, Kenneth Starr.

Let's assume for argument's sake that Mr. Starr is guilty of the horrendous misdeeds you enumerate. That still in no way changes the fact that there is more than sufficient evidence to suggest that the president committed perjury and obstructed justice, acts that might very well fit the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors.

That's for the Congress to decide; the process must continue. If the voting goes along party lines, so be it. That's the way the people's will is carried out in a representative democracy.

Michael H. Ries

Columbia

Your passionate, albeit desperate, lead editorial conveniently left out the fact that President Clinton failed to tell the whole truth under oath and that he lied to the American people for seven months.

I would suggest to your bipartisan scribes on Calvert Street that had Mr. Clinton told the truth at the outset, none of the "salacious stew" that has sold so many of your newspapers would ever have seen the light of day.

Mr. Clinton could have apologized for a lapse in judgment, made peace with his family and Kenneth Starr would have had to move on. But, Mr. Clinton chose to deceive and wag his finger at the American people.

Just as in Watergate, it is not the crime, but the lies and arrogant attempts to cover up by the president that have caused this "current travesty."

William P. Eber

Upperco

Question the character of accused or accuser?

In the writings of the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer there is a sentence so appropo to the present affair engulfing our nation. It says:

People of vulgar character find delight and pleasure in simple mistakes and follies of great men.

Joseph Kryszpel

Pikesville

Clinton acts as impeachable as Andrew Johnson's

During discussions about the Clinton scandals, much debate has gone on regarding what is an impeachable offense.

Though the fact that that Andrew Johnson was the only president ever tried in the Senate is occasionally mentioned, never have I seen any mention of what charge he was accused of.

President Johnson was impeached and tried simply because he defied the Radical Republicans in the Senate [and an act of Congress] by firing Edwin M. Stanton, his secretary of war. He was never accused of any criminal action of any kind, major or minor, and if firing a Cabinet member is treason, then most of the presidents are or have been guilty of treason.

So, if precedent plays any part in the current deliberations, the offenses charged to Bill Clinton are impeachable.

Henry E. West

Bel Air

Next Republican president will get greater protection

I would question the lead editorial outlining doom for future presidents after the current impeachment actions. Within the first year, if not the first days, of the next Republican presidency, I believe Congress will consider a bill to protect presidents from the type of unlimited inquiry that is going on today.

In fact, I'm betting on it, as I'm sure are many Republican politicians.

Thaddeus Paulhamus

Baltimore

Nixon, Clinton differences should have similar ends

Lately, there has been much discussion about the differences and the similarities between Watergate and Zippergate. In my opinion, one major difference is that, in 1974, Richard Nixon used misdeeds to cover up for his friends whereas Bill Clinton, in 1998, used his friends to cover up for his misdeeds.

One similarity is that, for the good of the country Mr. Clinton, like Mr. Nixon before him, must go.

Charles Brammer

Columbia

Governor should stay out of discussions on morals

When Monicagate broke, Gov. Parris N. Glendening could not appear with President Clinton because he felt it would send the wrong message to his teen-age son.

Mr. Glendening didn't want his son to get the idea that this type of moral behavior was acceptable. Now, however, with Mr. Clinton's approval ratings apparently showing that a great number of Americans don't agree that morality is a trait necessary to be a president, the governor says that he would welcome Mr. Clinton if the president chooses to visit Maryland.

Obviously, the president is now seen as a plus and not a minus to the race for governor and that takes precedence over the concern for sending the wrong message to the Glendening household. Next time there is a discussion on morals, the governor should leave the comments to someone who has them.

Carl S. Bice

Bel Air

Personalized guns prevent suicide by teen-agers

After reading "Smart guns, dumb idea" (Oct. 4), I would like to respond to Susan Glick's irrational way of thinking.

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.