Paula Jones

* Re your Nov. 15 editorial, “The ‘What If?’ Settlement”: I beg to differ with your conclusion that a 1994 settlement of the Paula Jones harassment suit would have been a positive thing for the country. You said, “We all could have been spared.”

We could have been spared the knowledge of the extent to which President Clinton lacks character, spared the knowledge that he believes he is above some of the laws of the land and spared the knowledge that he so easily lies to protect and advance his personal and political agendas.

Would it be better if Clinton didn’t have such negative qualities? Of course. But, given that it appears he will be our president for another two years, we should thank Jones for unwittingly letting the country get to better know the “real” Clinton.

We are now on notice to be skeptical of virtually everything Clinton tells us or does. We need to demand higher levels of proof rather than accept him at his word. This is a big price for the country to have to pay to keep a president it cannot trust. Sadly, for the majority, it’s a price they are willing to pay.

DONALD HIRT

Paso Robles

*

* Thank God this woman is finally going to disappear. However, I fear we may be stuck with someoneeven worse: Susan Carpenter-McMillan. Count me in for $100 to get her off our airwaves, out of our newspapers, banished from our periodicals and, with some therapy, out of our psyches.

DOUG HALL

Culver City

*

* No apology? Offhand, it sounds like 850,000 apologies to me.

DICK SCHNEIDER

Oak View, Calif.

*

* “It’s not about money. It’s about clearing my good name.” Uh-huh.

MICHAEL SCHLESINGER

Sherman Oaks

*

* How does Congress proceed with impeachment of Clinton now that the very case that stimulated impeachment proceedings has been settled, thereby rendering the issue moot?

ROBERT B. HARRIS

Lancaster