Kathleen Willey

Nothing has disturbed me quite so much as the March 17 Column Left Bill Press wrote about Kathleen Willey’s appearance on “60 Minutes.” I did not see it but I’m prepared to believe Willey told a convincing story. In the same issue was a detailed news story about Willey’s correspondence with the president and the warm and admiring feelings she expressed for him. How does one square the feelings in these letters with those she experienced in the Oval Office?

I have always supported women’s rights. But I also put great value on friendship and the integrity of personal relationships. It is clear that Willey wanted money and a job. But over time could she not have sought employment elsewhere? Then she need not have betrayed a friendship with the president nor misled the many members in the president’s administrative staff who were kind to her. For betray them she most certainly did.

HELEN MYERS

Claremont

* The suggestion that letters written to Clinton by Willey after her sexual assault somehow make her report not believable is preposterous. Every day women are sexually harassed in the workplace and do not quit their jobs. Why? Because they need the employment (money). This is what makes it so disgusting: It is the strong taking advantage of their position.

At the time the letters were written, Willey was a widow. Clinton was her patron. A longtime supporter of the president, she continued to look to him for help. Willey’s experience is one too often occurring in the workplace. No one may be excused this behavior.

DON MARTIN

Santa Ana

* So, Press and George Will (Column Right, March 17) find Willey to be “believable” and find no disparity between her anger with and written communications to the president after the alleged incident, nor with her reported $300,000 book deal or her alleged request made of her friend, Julie Steele, to falsely corroborate her story.

If you guys believe this nonsense, then have I got a sweet land deal for you. . .

LARRY LaCROIX

Glendale