Clinton Scandal

Pat Buchanan’s analysis of the Clinton-Lewinsky spectacle is amazingly disingenuous (Column Right, March 3). He begins by comparing Bill Clinton to Richard Nixon, forgetting that a private sexual dalliance (if one occurred) is a far cry from the constitutional violations admitted by Nixon. Clinton’s approval ratings are soaring because most Americans elect presidents for their protection of the Constitution, and not for their private sexual behaviors.

Then, Buchanan compares Kenneth Starr to Dr. Martin Luther King, forgetting that King fought for the civil rights of millions while Starr ignores civil liberties and earns millions for himself. In one simple comparison Buchanan denigrates the entire civil rights movement in this country.

Finally, in drawing his peculiar analogy between Joe McCarthy and Starr, Buchanan implies that homosexual behavior is really unimportant, a private matter that shouldn’t be used to besmirch Starr’s staff. Some of us are going to remember you wrote that, Pat! Despite your warped view of history, there may be some hope for you yet. Maybe you’d care to join the gay rights movement?

JOE ROLLINS

Santa Barbara

*

Uncovering the truth around the White House is about as difficult as uncovering the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

R.J. EVANS

Santa Monica

*

If Starr was “the Helen Keller of American politics” (“Starr’s Actions Found Wanting by Friend, Foe,” March 1) Starr would be sensitive, well-informed and compassionate. Although she was deaf and blind, Helen Keller was highly articulate, aware and involved in the political issues of her day. Richard Galen, who calls himself a political consultant, should know better than to use the derogatory term, “deaf, dumb and blind” when referring to Helen Keller, or to any deaf-blind person, for that matter.

MARGE KLUGMAN

Los Angeles

*

When will Starr take his entourage and move it all to Salem? I certainly am tired of seeing my tax dollars wasted in that manner.

RONALD E. HOHN

Los Angeles

*

Again you report Starr says people are spreading “lies” about him and his staff. Unfortunately (for Ken), what has been reported about his staff is not only true but is a matter of public record. It appears when Starr complains about people spreading “lies,” he is actually interested in preventing people from spreading the truth.

Subpoena me not.

ANDREW KIRN

Santa Monica

*

Your Feb. 26 editorial makes it appear you are blind to Clinton’s efforts to do everything in reach to discredit Starr. Did you forget attack dog James Carville’s threat, “This is war,” or poor Hillary’s “right-wing conspiracy”? Can you expect or do you want Starr to be a whipping boy and not even whimper when everything possible, including intimidation and lies, is being used to discredit the findings of a criminal investigation?

VERNON PADGETT

Calabasas