Clinton’s Meeting With Rushdie

* Once again Pat Buchanan has demonstrated just how narrow-minded he is in his Nov. 30 Column Right, “A Beau Geste That Clinton Should Regret.” President Clinton should be applauded, not criticized, for meeting with (“The Satanic Verses” author) Salman Rushdie. How can Buchanan be so concerned over what the Muslim world will think of this meeting? He should be grateful that we live in a country where freedom of expression is still valued, which is what the Clinton-Rushdie meeting emphasized.

The United States is the only superpower left in the world; it is our responsibility to lead by example, especially in areas of human rights and free speech, which the Muslims do not practice. If Buchanan is going to be outraged, it should be over the fact that Iran has not yet lifted the fatwa , and that a man’s life is in danger because of something he wrote, no matter how offensive to any group of people. It’s time for Buchanan to lift his head out of the sand.

MARISA N. PICKAR

Tarzana

* Buchanan, the century’s quintessential hypocrite, is at it again with his column attacking the President for meeting with Rushdie. Buchanan is the person who, among others, urged President Reagan’s visit to the Bitburg cemetery despite its memorials to the criminal Nazi SS and over the protests of many concentration camp survivors.

It is of little consequence that Buchanan asserts the death sentence to Rushdie to be “outrageous.” He is the master of damning with faint praise to make his larger points. Just a sentence or two later, he says “the way in which Rushdie exercised his literary freedom was irresponsible and contemptuous.” How many powerful and thought-provoking books from right to left in this country would have been canceled out by the Buchanan philosophy?

In the end, it is Buchanan who deals cards to our enemies by his 17th-Century thinking. If our citizens are now at greater risk because of a courtesy handshake that may or may not have been well-advised, it would be still greater evidence of the base nature of those alleged enemies themselves.

JOSEPH J. HONICK

Chatsworth

* The right to free speech appears to have superseded the right to life as is evident from Clinton’s and British Prime Minister John Major’s endorsement of Rushdie, and their neglect of thousands of Bosnians who are losing their lives every day.

If Clinton wants to send a political message to Iran, he should find some other way instead of supporting and patronizing an individual who has insulted the core beliefs of 1 billion Muslims, both Iranians and non-Iranians. Direct and open talks with Iran regarding the many issues, including the fatwa , would probably be more productive and effective than using circuitous ways to convey messages and in the process disregard the sensibilities of Muslims the world over.

SHAMIM IBRAHIM

Lomita

* The Muslim world, “irked” by President Clinton’s conversation with Salman Rushdie (Nov. 29), seems unwilling to acknowledge that for nations that uphold the right of free expression, Rushdie’s death sentence is as blasphemous as the sacrilegious material he is accused of creating.

Furthermore, any Middle Eastern peace treaty dependent on prohibiting dissent is unlikely to prove enduring. To condemn a man to death for writing a book is wrong to rationalize silence about that condemnation in the name of political expediency is worse.

By meeting with Rushdie, President Clinton made it clear the Rushdie issue must be resolved, not suppressed. We’re behind him all the way.

IRENE and PAUL OPPENHEIM

Los Angeles

* I am deeply disappointed with President Clinton for meeting with Rushdie. I thought it very ill-advised and that the meeting shows grave insensitivity on his part. To defend the right of free speech is one thing, but to honor an author for defaming the religion of 1 billion Muslims around the world and 6 million American Muslims is another matter, indeed.

Your article (Nov. 29) confirms my viewpoint; the Muslim world will be deeply offended and Clinton will have an extremely difficult time trying to make amends.

ZAYNEB HAJJAR

Cerritos

* If Rushdie is not safe in the West, then human rights and their bedrock, free expression, are not either. Make no mistake about it. Islamic theology has no place for democracy and human rights as protected by the U.S. Constitution. Rushdie and his publishers must be protected at any cost.

Shame on George Bush for being pragmatic with human rights. Hurray for Bill Clinton and Norman Mailer!

BARRY J. WALSHE

Newport Beach