Whitewater and Clinton
Re “Arkansas Governor, McDougals Convicted in Whitewater Case,” May 29:
I must be bored, but Whitewater fails to ignite as a political issue. Put simply, it boils down to this: Bill and Hillary Clinton fell subject to a sweet deal that they took because they trusted someone they shouldn’t have. Maybe the friend did some things that are wrong, but can anyone tell me whatever happened to Neil Bush? No one yet has found any criminal action in any of this as regards the Clintons.
And until then, Whitewater, for me, will remain what it’s been from the beginning--a pathetic, hypocritical attempt to deter someone’s political agenda from being implemented by any means necessary.
PHILIP K. PAULSON
Those who admonish us to not create a climate of “guilt by association” regarding Clinton because of his Whitewater partners’ convictions are ignoring a basic tenet that many of us learned at our mothers’ knees, i.e., a person is known and judged by the company he keeps.
Despite Whitewater hysteria from both the right (Cal Thomas) and left (Alexander Cockburn), history shows that this president has very little to worry about (Commentary, May 30). The Reagan administration taught us that the presence of a few criminals is hardly fatal. The main difference between then and now is that in those days the convicted felons tended to work right in the White House.
KEVIN P. SMITH
Re “Whitewater Yields Grist for the Mills of Campaign ’96,” editorial, May 30: I wonder how many convictions would result if friends or associates of Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich or Al D’Amato were subjected to a never-ending multi- million-dollar investigation. What character questions would that raise about them?
Rancho Cucamonga Caption: RANAN R. LURIE, New York City